2017 (4) TMI 162 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Entitlement to claim a benefit under section 43B(d) - Held that - The penalty order that the Assessing Officer has not given any finding that the assessee either concealed the income or filed inaccurate particulars. It is only observation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee tried to evade the tax. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has also not given any finding that the assessee has either concealed the income or filed inaccurate particulars. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the assessee neither concealed the income nor filed inaccurate particulars. The assessee has to pay interest of ₹ 38,46,611 to the APSFC. He has already paid an amount of ₹ 19,68,980. The balance amount payable is ₹ 18,77,631. According to the assessee, he is entitled to claim a benefit under section 43B(d) of the Act for entire amount, which is payable to APSFC. Therefore, the assessee filed all the details before the Assessing Officer and under bona fide belief, he has claimed excess relief which is not permissible in accordance with law. Thus, penalty provisions should not be attracted to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of disallowed interest amount under section 43B(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) for alleged evasion of Income-tax.
Consideration of whether the assessee concealed income or filed inaccurate particulars.
Applicability of legal precedents in determining penalty imposition.

Analysis:

1. Assessment of Disallowed Interest Amount:
The appeal pertains to the disallowance of interest paid to APSFC by the assessee-company. The Assessing Officer observed a variance between the interest claimed and the amount actually paid, leading to the disallowance of the differential amount under section 43B(d) of the Act. The issue revolved around the disallowed sum of &8377; 18,77,631, which was added back to the total income of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had accepted this disallowance, indicating no appeal against it. However, the penalty proceedings were initiated based on this disallowance, alleging an attempt to evade Income-tax.

2. Penalty Imposition for Alleged Evasion:
The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposed on the assessee for the disallowed interest amount and unsecured loans. The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty, alleging an intention to evade tax payments. The Tribunal deliberated on whether the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars, crucial for determining the penalty imposition.

3. Concealment or Inaccurate Particulars:
The Tribunal analyzed the facts and circumstances to ascertain if the assessee concealed income or filed inaccurate particulars. Notably, the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner did not find evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee, in good faith, claimed the entire interest amount under section 43B(d) of the Act, despite only paying a portion of it. Citing legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that a genuine claim, even if later found unsustainable, does not amount to concealment or filing inaccurate particulars.

4. Applicability of Legal Precedents:
Relying on legal precedents, such as the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. and a Tribunal case involving Varun Finstock Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal determined that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not warranted in this case. The Tribunal emphasized a clear distinction between assessment and penalty proceedings, highlighting that a rejected claim does not automatically attract penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal canceled the penalty levied on the assessee, allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment favored the assessee by ruling out penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) based on the absence of evidence indicating concealment or filing of inaccurate particulars. The decision underscored the importance of genuine claims and the distinction between assessment and penalty proceedings, aligning with established legal principles.