2024 (1) TMI 316 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 264 - penalty u/s 270A imposed - waiver of penalty u/s 270AA - petitioner had merged the provision for doubtful GST input tax credit in expense account, whereas the same was part of income and it is only during the scrutiny proceedings that the said income was offered for taxation - Deputy Commissioner rejecting the application seeking immunity from imposition of penalty and the revisional authority has thoroughly considered all the aspects, as raised by the petitioner, and has recorded a categoric finding that case of the petitioner falls within sub-Clause (a) and (c) of Section 270A (9) of the Act HELD THAT - From the assessment order, one aspect is very clear that the authorities under the Act had not detected the said aspect of amount of provision for GST and it was voluntarily offered by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner in its application under Section 270AA of the Act had sought personal hearing and the authority was bound to provide such personal hearing, however, admittedly no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. Authority had passed a wholly non-speaking order by only reiterating the provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 270AA and indicated that the application was not found tenable, as penalty under Section 270AA of the Act has been initiated under the circumstances, referred to in sub-Section (9) of Section 270A of the Act. Nothing has been indicated as to under which sub-clause of Section 270A (9), the case of the petitioner falls and only mechanical observations have been made to justify the imposition of penalty. The revisional authority, in its order cursorily observed that the case is observed to be within the ambit of Clause (a) and (c) of Section 270A (9) of the Act, therefore, 270AA (c) may apply to petitioner s case. The revisional authority apparently did not consider the fact that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing in violation of provisions of proviso to Section 270AA (4) and that the order impugned before it was wholly non-speaking and attempted to justify imposition of penalty under Section 270A (9) (a) and (c). The very fact that the indications were made that the matter fall within (a) and (c), necessarily means that even the revisional authority was not sure whether it was a case of misrepresentation or suppression of facts or claim of expense, not substantiated by any evidence. The finding recorded by the revisional authority is apparently contrary to the facts and essentially based on assumptions only on account of the fact that the petitioner on its own disclosed the income in question. Several notices were issued u/s 142 of the Act, during the course of scrutiny proceedings and as many as ten issues were raised, on which the authority could not make any additions, the aspect of merging GST Input Credit with expenses was not pointed out/detected and the same was only pointed out voluntarily by the petitioner and, therefore, apparently sub-Clauses (a) and (c) of Section 270A (9) of the Act are not attracted. Order passed by the assessing authority rejecting application under Section 270AA and the order passed by the revisional authority rejecting revision petition, cannot be sustained. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 270A for misreporting of income.
3. Denial of immunity from penalty under Section 270AA without providing an opportunity of hearing.

Summary:

1. Rejection of Revision Petition under Section 264:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 13.03.2023 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, which rejected the revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had initially filed its return of income and later revised it, suo moto surrendering the amount of 'provision for doubtful GST input tax credit' which had been mistakenly claimed as expenses.

2. Imposition of Penalty under Section 270A:
The National E-Assessment Centre (NeAC) added the surrendered amount to the total income and imposed a penalty under Section 270A for misreporting of income. The petitioner argued that the amount was voluntarily disclosed during scrutiny proceedings and did not fall under misrepresentation or suppression of facts as per Section 270A (9).

3. Denial of Immunity from Penalty under Section 270AA:
The petitioner sought immunity from penalty under Section 270AA, which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner without providing an opportunity of hearing, violating the proviso to Section 270AA (4). The rejection order was non-speaking and did not specify how the case fell under Section 270A (9). The revisional authority also cursorily upheld the penalty without addressing the lack of hearing or providing substantial reasons.

Judgment:
The court found that the authorities failed to detect the GST provision issue, which was voluntarily disclosed by the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner violated Section 270AA (4) by not providing a hearing, and both the rejection orders were non-speaking and lacked justification. Citing the Delhi High Court's decision in Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd., the court emphasized the legislative intent of Section 270AA to encourage voluntary disclosure and reduce litigation.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, and the orders dated 27.07.2021 and 13.03.2023 were quashed. The respondents were directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA to the petitioner.