2018 (2) TMI 1140 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - audit expenses claimed to be incurred by the assessee company towards travelling and conveyance of the Articled Clerks, who were C.A. students receiving training from the assessee-firm - Held that - Although this claim of the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer on the ground that it was specifically submitted by the assessee earlier that the audit expenses were incurred by its Audit staff and Audit Clerks without any reference to the Articled Clerks undergoing training with it, it is observed that nothing has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to establish that the claim of the assessee was wrong and the audit expenses in question were incurred on the Audit staff, which did not include Articled Clerks undergoing training with the assessee-firm as per the stipulation of the ICAI. No doubt, the assessee firm also failed to bring anything on record to support and substantiate its explanation but such failure, in our opinion, can justify the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the value of Fringe Benefit but not the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(d), especially when the audit expenses were separately debited by the assessee-firm in its Profit & Loss Account and all the relevant details of the same were fully and truly furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer. No case where the assessee can be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars of Fringe Benefits to justify the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(d). - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(d) for alleged concealment of Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) expenses.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a partnership firm of Chartered Accountants, had debited audit expenses in its Profit & Loss Account. The Assessing Officer found these expenses to be liable for FBT calculation and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee contended that the expenses were for Articled Clerks, not employees, and thus not subject to FBT. The Assessing Officer disagreed, included the expenses in FBT calculation, and imposed a penalty. The assessee challenged this penalty before the CIT(Appeals).

During the appellate proceedings, the assessee argued that no inaccurate particulars were furnished, as the expenses were clearly disclosed. Citing legal precedents, the assessee claimed there was no intention to conceal facts. However, the CIT(Appeals) upheld the penalty, stating that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars by claiming FBT as audit expenses. The CIT(Appeals) found no employer-employee relationship, leading to the imposition of the penalty. Dissatisfied, the assessee appealed to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the audit expenses were incurred on staff not including Articled Clerks. While the assessee's explanation lacked substantiation, the Tribunal deemed the penalty unjustified. It noted that the expenses were separately debited and fully disclosed, thus canceling the penalty under section 271(1)(d). The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and canceling the penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(d) on the grounds of alleged concealment of FBT expenses. The decision was based on the lack of evidence to support the Assessing Officer's claim and the full disclosure of audit expenses by the assessee. The Tribunal found no justification for the penalty and ruled in favor of the assessee, canceling the penalty and allowing the appeal.