2021 (12) TMI 1043 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - assessee had wrongly shown the rental income as 'business income' whereas it was to be offered for taxation as 'income from house property' - HELD THAT - Admittedly the assessee has not concealed the aforesaid rental income received from two parties. The income was duly offered for taxation, however, as income from business and profession. The assessee in this respect has relied upon its objects wherein it has been mentioned that one of the object of the assessee was to provide space solutions to its clients. The assessee taking shelter under the aforesaid object, returned the income from the space rented out by it to two parties as business income. However, the income tax authorities and even appellate authorities did not agree with the aforesaid plea of the assessee and held that the assessee was primarily in the activity of providing IT Solutions and related activities and that renting of property was not the business activity of the assessee. One fact which is apparent on the file is that the assessee had not concealed his income and under the bona fide belief, offered the same for taxation. However, the income tax authorities assessed it under different head. Even the pertinent fact on the file is that in the immediate preceding assessment year, the assessee had offered the same income as income from business and which was accepted by the AO under scrutiny assessment proceedings. Under the circumstances for the assessment year under consideration, the assessee can safely be said to be having bonafide belief for offering the same under the same head i.e. 'income from business or profession'. - We do not find that it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for allegedly providing inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant argued that the conclusion drawn was based on surmises and conjectures, urging for the deletion of the penalty.

2. The appellant further contended that the principles established by the Supreme Court and other judicial pronouncements for imposing penalties under section 271(1)(c) were not considered by the CIT(A), leading to a denial of natural justice. The appellant sought adherence to these principles for a just outcome.

3. The appellant, while reserving the right to modify grounds of appeal, challenged the penalty imposed in relation to the assessment year 2013-14.

4. The case involved a partnership firm formed to provide IT solutions and space solutions, which purchased an industrial plot and received rental income from the property. The appellant reported the rental income as business income in the income tax return, not as income from house property.

5. Despite the appellant's explanation that the rental income was treated as business income due to providing furnished space with various fixtures, the Assessing Officer (AO) disagreed and categorized it as income from house property. The appellant's appeal to the Tribunal was unsuccessful.

6. Subsequently, the AO imposed a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by misreporting the rental income. The penalty was upheld by the CIT(A), leading to the appellant's appeal to the Tribunal.

7. During the proceedings, the appellant argued that there was no concealment of income, as the rental income was disclosed for taxation under a bona fide belief that it constituted business income. The appellant highlighted that the AO had accepted the same treatment in the preceding year.

8. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant had not concealed income and had offered the rental income in good faith as business income based on the firm's objects. Despite differing interpretations by tax authorities, the Tribunal found the appellant's belief to be bona fide. Given the consistent treatment of income in previous assessments, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unwarranted and ordered its deletion, allowing the appeal.

9. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant and ordering the deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Judgment:
The Tribunal, after thorough consideration of the facts and submissions, allowed the appeal, concluding that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was unjustified. The Tribunal emphasized the appellant's bona fide belief in treating the rental income as business income and the consistent reporting of income in previous assessments, leading to the deletion of the penalty.