2018 (5) TMI 236 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non allowability of expenses - non voluntary deceleration - Held that - The three items in respect of which the addition is made, namely, loss on sale of fixed assets, fixed assets written off and provisions for doubtful debts do not fall under Chapter VIA of the Act and it leads no amount of support to the contention of the assessee that no query was raised for all the items. It, therefore, stands established that the assessee company had been suffering persistent losses and it is not an attempt to reduce the profit or tax. Though the notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) was issued, in so far as the declaration of non allowability of these expenditures are concerned, such items were not covered under the query and to that extent, a revised computation filed by the assessee is voluntary. Undoubtedly, the assesseee is incurring persistent losses and there is considerable reduction in the manpower. Further, the tax audit report vide Clause 17(a) thereof says that the auditors reported the expenses of capital nature as nil . Mere issuance of notice u/s 143(2) does not ipso facto make the declaration of the assessee as non voluntary. We are convinced to believe that the mistake in this matter is the result of the assessee but does not amount to the concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. With this view of the mater, we hold that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenses in the return of income at the stage of assessment.
2. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Claim of inadvertent mistake due to reduction of manpower and persistent losses.
4. Voluntary disclosure of mistake through revised computation.
5. Consideration of financial stringencies leading to reduction in workforce.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellant, a private limited company, filed a return of income for the Asstt. Year 2012-13, declaring a total loss. Subsequently, a revised computation was filed to disallow certain expenses. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the revision, making an addition to the expenses. The AO also imposed a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention was that no amendment could be made at the assessment stage. The CIT(A) upheld the decision, considering the appellant a habitual offender. The appellant argued that the disallowance did not amount to concealment of income and was due to a clerical mistake caused by reduced manpower due to persistent losses.

Issue 2: The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was challenged by the appellant, contending that the revised computation was filed voluntarily without any query raised by the AO regarding the specific expenses. The appellant highlighted the reduction in workforce and financial losses suffered. The AO and CIT(A) relied on precedents to support the penalty imposition.

Issue 3: The appellant demonstrated a considerable reduction in manpower and financial losses incurred, leading to the inadvertent mistake in the return of income. The appellant argued that the revised computation was a voluntary disclosure of the error and not a deliberate attempt to claim inadmissible expenses.

Issue 4: The appellant emphasized that the revised computation was filed after realizing the mistake during assessment proceedings, even though no query was raised specifically regarding the expenses in question. The appellant referenced the tax audit report to support the claim of inadvertent error due to lack of skilled staff.

Issue 5: The appellant presented evidence of financial stringencies forcing a reduction in workforce and significant losses incurred by the company. The appellant contended that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unwarranted considering the circumstances leading to the mistake in the return of income.

In the judgment, the Tribunal considered the persistent losses, reduction in manpower, and voluntary disclosure of the error through the revised computation. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained as the mistake did not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The AO was directed to delete the penalty, and the appeal of the appellant was allowed.