2016 (9) TMI 502 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that - During the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not give any justification, rather, revised the return and reduced its claim of loss. Again during the penalty proceedings, the assessee did not give any explanation as to how mistake was occurred. Before the ld.CIT(A), it was contented by the assessee that a bona fide mistake was committed by the staff while preparing the statement of total income. According to the assessee, the assessee had no intention to conceal any particulars of income or avoid its tax liability, because, the assessee company never wants to claim prior period expenditure and deferred tax liability as revenue expenditure, because they have not been debited to expenditure account. The onus upon the assessee was to demonstrate as to how mistake has occurred. How such a mistake could be alleged as a bona fide mistake ? The only explanation on that score is that the company is operating at a very small level. Its total turnover was ₹ 19 lakhs. Apart from that the assessee did not bother to go to AO to give any explanation. How the AO could verify that explanation given by the assessee was false or not ? Because no explanation was given. Similarly, the assessee failed to give any material which can substantiate its explanation as to how the mistake has happened. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved: Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Confirmation of Penalty
The assessee appealed against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty of ?2,74,652 imposed by the ld.AO. The case revolved around the assessee's filing of return, subsequent scrutiny assessment, and imposition of penalty by the AO.

Issue 2: Justification for Penalty
The assessee argued that the penalty should not apply as there was no intention to conceal income or avoid tax liability. The contention was based on the assertion that the mistake in the computation of income was bona fide and not deliberate. The assessee emphasized its small business activities, low turnover, and voluntary revision of the income return to rectify errors.

Issue 3: Legal Provisions and Interpretation
The judgment delved into the legal provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, highlighting the conditions for imposing penalties related to concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The section outlined the penalty range and the deeming provisions for concealment of income. The analysis also referenced Explanation 4(a) of the Act, which addressed notional evasion of taxes in cases of reduced loss declared in returns.

Issue 4: Comparison with Precedent
The judgment compared the present case with a precedent involving Price Waterhouse Coopers P.Ltd., emphasizing the importance of providing a detailed explanation for mistakes in income computation. The absence of a satisfactory explanation from the assessee in the current case led to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment underscored the need for substantiating claims and proving the bona fide nature of errors to avoid penalties.

Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling against the assessee. The decision was based on the lack of sufficient explanation for the income computation errors and the failure to demonstrate the bona fide nature of the mistakes. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing detailed justifications in tax matters to avoid penalties under the relevant legal provisions.