2020 (3) TMI 173 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - denying the claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT - In support of the unsecured loan of 13, 000/- the assessee has submitted the necessary confirmation from the lender therefore non-acceptance of the confirmation so filed of the assessee may be basis for making the addition u/s 68 of the Act. However given the fact that the same has been filed by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings the AO who has relied on the findings in the assessment order has levied the penalty. Therefore it is case where the explanation has been furnished by the assessee and necessary confirmation has also been filed non-acceptance thereof may be basis for making the addition however the same cannot be the basis for levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the result the levy of penalty on such addition is hereby deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Sustenance of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.
2. Denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) and imposition of penalty for concealed income.
3. Initiation and sustenance of penalty proceedings without proper direction in the assessment order.
4. Levying penalty on unsecured loan without specifying charges and without proper consideration of explanations provided.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Sustenance of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act
The appellant contested the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) concerning concealed income. The ld CIT(A) upheld the penalty on the surplus of receipts over expenditure and on a specific amount, despite the appellant's arguments against the penalty. The penalty was confirmed on the concealed income, leading to a partial allowance of the appellant's appeal.

Issue 2: Denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) and imposition of penalty for concealed income
The Assessing Officer denied exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) due to lack of documentary evidence from the appellant. The penalty was imposed for concealed income based on the denial of exemption and unproved claims. The ld CIT(A) upheld the penalty, considering the appellant's intentions to evade tax and conceal income, leading to the confirmation of the penalty on the concealed income.

Issue 3: Initiation and sustenance of penalty proceedings without proper direction in the assessment order
The appellant argued that the penalty proceedings were initiated without a specific direction in the assessment order, as required under section 271(IB). The absence of a recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officer regarding concealed income or inaccurate particulars of income was highlighted. The Tribunal ruled that the initiation of penalty proceedings lacked proper direction and satisfaction, leading to the setting aside of the penalty.

Issue 4: Levying penalty on unsecured loan without specifying charges and without proper consideration of explanations provided
Regarding the penalty on an unsecured loan, the appellant contended that the Assessing Officer did not specify charges related to concealing income or providing inaccurate particulars. The appellant provided explanations and confirmation for the unsecured loan, which were not adequately considered by the ld CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the explanation and evidence provided by the appellant were sufficient, and the non-acceptance of the explanation could not warrant the penalty. Therefore, the penalty on the unsecured loan was deleted.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalties imposed on the appellant for concealed income and unsecured loan, emphasizing the importance of proper direction and consideration of explanations in penalty proceedings.