2023 (7) TMI 1047 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - evade taxes in respect of capital gain - Default by accountant of the assessee - as per DR assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income as the assessee has not disclosed Long Term Capital Gain as well as the interest income - HELD THAT - It is an admitted position that there was a mistake on part of the accountant for which the assessee has filed the affidavit of the accountant as well. From the perusal of the affidavit it appears that during the preparation of the particulars of return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 the said accountant was unwell and the subordinate accountant being ignorant above the actual quantification has filed incorrect return of income. The mistake on part of the accountant cannot be treated as mistake of the assessee and therefore, the decision of Price Waterhouse Cooper Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT is squarely applicable in the present case. AO as well as the CIT(A) was not right in imposing the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in this case are the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for alleged concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars, as well as the condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the penalty order.

Imposition of Penalty:
The appeal was filed against the penalty order imposed by the Assessing Officer for the addition of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) and interest income. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, leading to the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The appellant argued that the penalty was illegal, unlawful, and against the principles of natural justice. The appellant contended that the CIT(A) failed to consider the explanations and evidence provided. The Tribunal noted that the accountant's illness led to the incorrect filing of the return, and the mistake should not be attributed to the appellant. Citing the Price Waterhouse Cooper Pvt. Ltd. case, the Tribunal held that the penalty imposition was unjustified, and the appeal was allowed.

Condonation of Delay:
The appellant sought condonation of the delay in filing the appeal due to the accountant's illness and subsequent confusion regarding the penalty order. The delay of 513 days was explained as the appellant's unawareness of the need to challenge the penalty order within the stipulated time. The Tribunal, considering the genuine explanation provided, condoned the delay, allowing the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income and inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant.

This judgment highlights the importance of justifying penalty imposition under tax laws and the significance of genuine reasons for seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings.