2016 (9) TMI 4 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that - In the show cause notice dated 01/12/2010 there was no specific charges as relates to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as relates to business advance as it was forfeited and the same were accepted in respective years. Therefore there was no concealment on the part of the assessee. This was a simple case of disallowance of expenses under the head in which most of smaller expenses have been allowed during the year as well as in the earlier years. Thus the authorities cited by the Ld. AR are applicable in the present case. In respect of miscellaneous expenses the forfeitures were not produced since they were untraceable and the same was not concealed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Thus there is no concealment. Thus Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not correctly invoked by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) also overlooked the actual intention of the penalty proceedings which clearly set out that when there is inaccurate particulars or concealment on part of the assessee then the same should be proceeded. But in the present case the assessee has disclosed all the factual aspects before the Assessing Officer which cannot be stated that there was concealment of particulars of income or the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for various additions made in the assessment order.
2. Defectiveness of initiation of penalty and penalty notices.
3. Disallowance of business advance forfeited.
4. Disallowance of miscellaneous expenses.
5. Disallowance of maintenance expenses paid in cash.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed for additions made in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer added amounts for late TDS deposit, business loss, miscellaneous expenses, and maintenance expenses. The appellant did not appeal the assessment order, leading to the penalty imposition. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, confirming the penalty for three additions. The appellant argued that the penalty initiation and notices were defective for not specifying the charges clearly. Citing legal authorities, the appellant contended that without proper show cause notices, the penalty proceedings were invalid.

2. The appellant further argued against the penalty on the disallowance of business advance forfeited. The appellant engaged in land transactions involving negotiations and advances to various parties. The forfeited advances were claimed as expenses, with only a portion disallowed. The appellant asserted that these were genuine expenses, akin to bad debt write-offs, and not concealment of income. Legal precedents were cited to support the argument that incorrect claims do not equate to concealment.

3. Regarding the disallowance of miscellaneous and maintenance expenses paid in cash, the appellant defended these as genuine expenses, albeit lacking vouchers due to unforeseen circumstances. The appellant contended that disallowances were not indicative of concealment but rather bona fide expenses. Legal references were provided to support the claim that lack of evidence for expenses does not automatically imply inaccurate particulars of income.

4. After reviewing the arguments and evidence, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal noted that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the case of disallowed expenses. The authorities cited by the appellant were deemed applicable, indicating that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was incorrectly invoked. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had disclosed all relevant facts to the Assessing Officer, negating any claims of concealment or inaccuracies. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was set aside.