2020 (10) TMI 296 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 27(1)(c) - bogus LTCG claim of the assessee on transaction in penny stocks of Mukesh Choksi Group of accommodation entry providers - ITAT deleted the penalty - HELD THAT - Incidence of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic and should not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do. Considering the smallness of the amount involved, we consider it expedient to give benefit of doubt to the assessee owing to mitigating circumstances viz; the absence of copy of statement of Mr. Mukesh Chokshi or any other substantive material. The assessee has supported the face value of transactions with bills and payments. In the backdrop of ambiguity in circumstances, it is difficult to hold that the explanation offered by the assessee is blatantly false. We are thus inclined to exonerate the assessee from the incidence of penalty. However, in peculiar circumstances, this view shall not operate as precedent in any manner. - No substantial question of law.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c) on bogus LTCG claim of the assessee on transaction in penny stocks of Mukesh Choksi Group of accommodation entry providers.

Analysis:
The High Court of Gujarat heard an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed by the revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The issue revolved around the deletion of a penalty of ?50,330 levied under section 271(1)(c) on a long-term capital gain (LTCG) claim related to transactions in penny stocks of Mukesh Choksi Group. The Appellate Tribunal, in its decision, considered the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. It noted that the assessee had provided supporting bills and payment details for the reported transactions. The Tribunal highlighted that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) should not be imposed automatically and must be based on substantial evidence. Due to the absence of Mr. Mukesh Chokshi's statement or any other material, the Tribunal gave the benefit of doubt to the assessee, considering the ambiguity in the circumstances. The Tribunal decided to exonerate the assessee from the penalty, emphasizing that the decision should not set a precedent.

The High Court, after reviewing the Tribunal's reasoning, found no valid reason to entertain the appeal. It also opined that the proposed question of law was not substantial. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty. The judgment highlighted the importance of substantial evidence in imposing penalties under the Income Tax Act and emphasized the need to consider all relevant circumstances before penalizing an assessee.