9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1356 - HC - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - interest on shortfall in payment of advance income-tax is in the nature of finance cost and hence should not be clubbed with the Current tax and should be separately disclosed - Held that - In view of the well settled legal provisions as much as in the matter has specifically stated and the referred in the balance sheet, in our considered view, the view taken by the Tribunal is required to be reversed. In view of the observations made in the last para in Shervani Hospitalities case 2013 (6) TMI 15 - DELHI HIGH COURT that the penalty can be imposed when the details furnished by the assessee are found to be incorrect, erroneous and false. Merely making a claim which is held as not sustainable under law should not lead to penalization, when the assessee had furnished full details in the return itself and the claim is a debatable, reasonably plausible or may well have been accepted, no imposition of penalty. Without entering into merit, penalty could not be imposed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
- Justification of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c): The primary issue in this case was whether the ITAT was justified in confirming the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal, which had dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty imposed by the CIT(A) and AO. Arguments by the Appellant: The counsel for the appellant argued that, according to the guidelines issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India under the Revised Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956, any interest on shortfall in payment of advance income-tax is considered a finance cost and should be classified under interest expense in finance costs, not current tax. This was supported by the disclosure in the profit and loss account for the year ended March 31, 2010, where interest paid on income tax was shown separately. Relevant Case Laws Cited: The appellant's counsel cited several judgments to argue that the penalty was not justified: - Shervani Hospitalities Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Delhi High Court): This case highlighted that expenditure on repairs or improvements on leasehold premises, though debated, could be claimed as revenue expenditure. The court noted that making a claim, even if disallowed, does not automatically justify a penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c). - Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Anand Prakash (Delhi High Court): The court observed that interest under Section 234B is compensatory, not penal, and cannot be levied if the assessee could not have anticipated the income. - Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Supreme Court): The court held that an inadvertent error does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. - Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (Supreme Court): It was emphasized that disallowance of a claim does not mean concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. - Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Ms. Sania Mirza (Andhra Pradesh High Court): The court noted that as long as the amount was disclosed correctly, there was no concealment or inaccuracy. - Rave Entertainment (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Allahabad High Court): Penalty should not be imposed unless there is deliberate defiance of law or contumacious conduct. Conclusion by the Court: After hearing both parties, the court concluded that the Tribunal's view needed to be reversed. The court referenced the Delhi High Court's observations in Shervani Hospitalities' case, emphasizing that without entering into the merits, the penalty could not be imposed. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the issue must be answered in favor of the assessee and against the department. Final Order: The appeal was allowed, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deemed unjustified. The judgment underscored that penalties should not be imposed for mere disallowance of claims unless there is clear evidence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
|
