2017 (1) TMI 903 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Assessee had sold depreciable assets and had claimed STCG - Held that - penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be levied automatically if the issue is only about had under which the particular income should be assessed. In the case under consideration, the assessee had filed all the necessary details about the share transaction, that the AO and the assessee had difference of opinion about the treatment to be given to the said transaction. All the details of the transactions were available to the AO. Therefore, it could not be held that assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of income had concealed the particulars of income. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of income for a trading company.
2. Treatment of short-term capital gains and long-term capital loss.
3. Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income particulars.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the assessment of income for a trading company engaged in the business of trading nonferrous metals, shares, and stocks. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, determining the income of the company.

2. The main issue revolved around the treatment of short-term capital gains (STCG) and long-term capital loss (LTCL) arising from the sale of depreciable assets and shares. The AO disallowed the set-off of the loss on shares against the gains on depreciable assets, leading to a penalty being levied under section 271(1)(c).

3. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) partially allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, holding that there was no concealment of income particulars as all relevant details were disclosed. The FAA referred to case laws and the judgment in Reliance Petro Products Ltd. to support the decision to delete the penalty.

4. During the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the Departmental Representative supported the AO's order, while the Authorized Representative relied on the FAA's order and cited relevant case laws. The Tribunal noted that the dispute was primarily about the classification of income under different heads and held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied automatically in such cases.

5. Citing judgments from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the Tribunal emphasized that the mere difference of opinion between the AO and the assessee regarding the treatment of income does not amount to concealment of income particulars. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the AO, upholding the decision to delete the penalty.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely based on a disagreement over the classification of income. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of full disclosure of details and legal opinions in such cases, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the AO's appeal.