2023 (9) TMI 1340 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - denial of claim of exemption u/s. 54B - NFAC condoned the delay of 391 days in filing the appeal, but rejected the claim of additional documents stating that the assessee has not explained why the additional documents were not filed before the Assessing Officer. HELD THAT - It is well settled principle of law that merely because exemption on merit was not granted by the Authority, which will not attract penalty provisions. The assessee in the penalty appeal has produced all the relevant documents by way of additional documents, but the same were not accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). As decided in INTAS PHARMA LTD. 2021 (12) TMI 205 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT merely because claim on merit was not granted, penalty could not be levied - Also see RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Confirmation of Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee.

Confirmation of Penalty:
The appeal was filed against the appellate order confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,30,258/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The key issue was whether there was a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee.

Background of the Case:
The assessee, an individual deriving income from various sources, was covered in a search action under section 132 of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of exemption under section 54B of the Act related to Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of agricultural lands. The assessee's appeals were dismissed for non-production of relevant documents, leading to the levy of the penalty.

Contentions of the Assessee:
The assessee contended that the disallowance under section 54B was based on presumptions by the Assessing Officer and that all relevant details were provided. The assessee argued that the land sold was used for agricultural purposes, and the income tax return reflected agricultural income. Additionally, it was claimed that the land in question did not qualify as a capital asset under the IT Act.

Decision and Rationale:
The Tribunal considered various judicial precedents and held that the mere disallowance of a claim on merit does not automatically attract penalty provisions. It was emphasized that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) requires inaccurate particulars of income, which were not found in this case. The Tribunal found no deliberate misrepresentation of facts or suppression of material facts by the assessee. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 1,30,258/- was deleted, and the appeal by the Assessee was allowed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Assessee, allowing the appeal and deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the lack of inaccurate particulars of income furnished by the assessee, as per relevant legal principles and precedents.