2021 (3) TMI 167 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Non recoding of satisfaction - defective notice - deduction u/s 57 on the expenditure of 'service charges' 'maintenance expenses' has not been incurred in connection with making investment in deposit with ICICI bank or loan / advance given to Shri Dhiraj Sarna Shri Shakti Singh and disallowed the expenditure - HELD THAT - Revenue has not specified under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty has been levied. It is elementary that for assuming valid jurisdiction to impose penalty, the Assessing Officer must, first be satisfied, though prima facie , that the assessee has either concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income and on the basis of such satisfaction a show cause notice has to be issued u/s 274 of the Act to the assessee specifying the addition/ disallowance in respect of which penalty is sought to be imposed and also the precise charge/ ground on which penalty is proposed to be imposed thereon. The particulars of expenses have been duly provided in the P L account and has also provided the basis of apportionment of these expenses. Hence, it cannot be said that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income . The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as concealment too. Mere disallowance of an expense cannot lead to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). This is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.
2. Allowability of expenditure claimed under section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Legality of the order passed under section 250(6) of the Act.

Issue 1: Validity of Penalty Order under Section 271(1)(c) for Concealment of Income:

The appellant challenged the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for &8377; 3,21,013, contending that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to record proper satisfaction as required by section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the penalty order was arbitrary and lacked adherence to principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not specify the grounds under which the penalty was levied, failing to establish valid jurisdiction. It was emphasized that the mere disallowance of an expense does not amount to concealment of income. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty was unjustified as the appellant had provided accurate particulars of income and expenses, leading to the allowance of the appeal against the penalty order.

Issue 2: Allowability of Expenditure Claimed under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act:

The appellant claimed proportionate expenses against interest income under section 57(iii) of the Act, allocating the remaining expenses towards exempt dividend income. The AO disallowed the expenses related to service charges and maintenance, asserting that they were not incurred solely for earning the interest income. The Tribunal observed that the AO failed to establish a clear nexus between the expenditure and the income sought to be earned, leading to the disallowance. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this disallowance, stating that the expenses were allowable deductions under section 57(iii) as they were incurred for running and administering the appellant's firm. Relying on relevant case laws, the Tribunal held that the expenses were legitimate and allowable, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.

Issue 3: Legality of the Order Passed under Section 250(6) of the Act:

The appellant contested the legality of the order passed under section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue extensively in the judgment, as the primary focus was on the validity of the penalty order and the allowability of claimed expenses. Consequently, the Tribunal did not provide detailed analysis or findings regarding the legality of the order passed under section 250(6) of the Act.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi, comprising Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member, allowed the appeal of the assessee against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The Tribunal also upheld the appellant's claim for the allowance of expenses under section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the legitimate nature of the expenses incurred. The judgment did not extensively address the legality of the order passed under section 250(6) of the Act, focusing primarily on the penalty and expenditure issues.