2016 (1) TMI 1030 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Held that - The assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the income and there are no findings of the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) that the details furnished by the assessee in his return are found to be inaccurate or erroneous or false. Under these circumstances, in our view the penalty in dispute is totally unwarranted and deserve to be deleted. Accordingly, we delete the penalty made u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act and cancel the orders of the authorities below on the issue in dispute. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate particulars of income regarding a claim of capital loss as business loss.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) had assessed the income and proposed the penalty for failure to disclose true particulars of income related to a claim of capital loss as a business loss. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, leading to further proceedings.

2. The Assessee appealed before the Tribunal in the quantum appeal, which was decided in favor of the Assessee. However, the Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court, which held that the shares in question were held as investments, not revenue assets, and set aside the Tribunal's order. Subsequently, the AO imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,00,000 under section 271(1)(c), which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) but deleted by the ITAT.

3. The High Court directed the Tribunal to re-decide the penalty issue on its merits. During the hearing, the Assessee's counsel argued that the claim was bonafide, and all relevant facts were correctly supplied. The Departmental Representative contended that since the High Court favored the Revenue in the quantum appeal, the penalty should be sustained.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the case, considering the previous decisions and arguments presented. It noted that the quantum appeal outcome does not conclusively determine the imposition of a penalty. The Tribunal found merit in the Assessee's claim that the loss was bonafide and not a case of concealment of income, citing relevant legal precedents.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessee did not furnish inaccurate particulars of income or conceal income. As there were no findings of inaccurate details in the return, the penalty was deemed unwarranted and deleted. The appeal filed by the Assessee was allowed, and the penalty of Rs. 50,00,000 under section 271(1)(c) was canceled.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the legal arguments presented, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) in favor of the Assessee.