IFCI VENTURE CAPITAL FUNDS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5696/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 June 2019AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to clearly specify which particulars were inaccurate. Since Form 26AS showed the interest as 'not applicable', it was inappropriate for the Revenue to claim inaccurate particulars were filed. Therefore, the penalty was wrongly imposed.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, engaged in project financing, did not offer interest received on income tax refunds for taxation. The Assessing Officer made an addition for this amount and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal against the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is sustainable when Form 26AS indicated the interest was not applicable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Ms. Indu Gupta, CFO
Hearing: 04.06.2019Pronounced: 07.06.2019

ORDER

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 01/09/2016 passed by CIT(A)-35, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

The grounds of appeal

are as under:- “1. That the Appellate Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, New Delhi (here-in-after referred to as the 'CIT (Appeals)) is bad in law and wrong on facts and must be quashed.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax AY 2013-14 India Habitat Centre

Act, 1961 in respect of interest on income tax refunds not received by the appellant. 3. That on the facts of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in stating in Para-4 of the order that "In the result, the appeal is dismissed" whereas the appeal has been partly allowed. 4. That the appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, alter, amend or vary any ground(s) at or before the time of hearing.”

3.

The assessee Company is engaged in the business of project financing and asset management. The assessee company e-filed its return of income on 28.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.26,00,50,950/-. Case was selected for scrutiny and assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 09.01.2015 thereby making an addition on account of interest received on income tax refund was not offered for tax and disallowance of expenses u/s 14A. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income were also initiated by the Assessing Officer and penalty notice was issued on 09.01.2015. The Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) has imposed penalty of Rs.3,53,210/- in respect of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs.9,56,835/- which was relating to interest received on income tax refund but not offered for tax.

4.

Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that the order of the CIT(A) is non-speaking and there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars on part of the assessee relating to interest received on income tax refunds. The Ld. AR further submitted that Form 26AS issued by the Revenue department wherein the interest column has been specifically mentioned ‘not applicable’. Thus Ld. AR submitted that penalty order itself is bad in law. 2 AY 2013-14 India Habitat Centre

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and the penalty order as well as assessment order.

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the material available on record. The CIT(A) invoked Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act and that too the limb of ‘of inaccurate particulars of income’ filed by assessee. The Revenue has to clearly state as to which particulars are not being filed accurately. Form 26AS is the document issued by the Revenue and in the said document the interest portion has been shown as ‘not applicable’. If the department itself has not given a proper quantification, it will not be appropriate on part of the Revenue to take a plea that the assessee filed inaccurate particulars of income. In fact the assessee has offered the refund amount to the tax authorities. Therefore, the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) was not correct in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal of assessee stands allowed. 8. In result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07th June, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (G. D. AGRAWAL) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 07/06/2019 *Gmv Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →