ALPEX EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 16.10.2014 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi for assessment year 2011-12 wherein, vide the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed penalty of Rs. 3,44,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 by holding in Para 62 that finding in assessment proceedings cannot automatically be adopted in penalty proceedings and the authorities have to consider the matter afresh from different angle. The statute requires a satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer. He is required to arrive at a satisfaction so as to show that concealed the amount or furnished inaccurate particulars and this onus is to be discharged by the Department. While considering whether the assessee has been able to discharge his burden the Assessing Officer should not begin with the presumption that he is guilty. Since the burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in the assessment proceedings, a finding in the assessment proceedings that a particular receipt is income cannot automatically be adopted, though a finding in the assessment proceedings constitutes good evidence in the penalty proceedings. In the penalty proceedings the authorities must consider the matter afresh as the question has to be considered from a different angle. It is important to keep in mind the fundamental legal proposition that Assessment proceedings are not conclusive. Assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct. Findings in Assessment proceedings don’t operate as res judicata in penalty proceedings. For this proposition reliance is placed on the decision in CIT vs. Dharamchand L. Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462 (Bom). In Vijay Power Generators Ltd vs. ITO (2008)6 DTR 64 (Del) it was held that “It is well settled that though they constitute good evidence do not constitute conclusive evidence in penalty proceedings.” During penalty proceedings, there has to be reappraisal of the very same material on the basis of which the addition was made and if further material is adduced by the assessee in the course of the penalty proceedings, it is all the more necessary that such further material should also be examined in an attempt to ascertain whether the assessee concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Thus, under penalty proceedings assessee can discharge his burden by relying on the same material on the basis of which assessment is made by contending that all necessary disclosures were made and that on the basis of material disclosed there cannot be a case of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Further if there is any material or additional evidence which was not produced during assessment proceedings same can be produced in penalty proceedings as both assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct and separate. In CIT vs. M/s Sidhartha Enterprises (2009) 184 Taxman 460 (P&H)(HC) it was held that the judgment in Dharmendra Textile cannot be read as laying down that in every case where particulars of income are inaccurate, penalty must follow. Even so, the concept of penalty has not undergone change by virtue of the said judgment. Penalty is imposed only when there is some element of deliberate default.

5.1 Reverting to the facts of the present case, the penalty order is woefully silent on the issue as to how this satisfaction of concealment was arrived at. The quantum addition on which the penalty has been imposed pertains claim of depreciation on building on which 30% deduction had also been u/s 24. The Ld. CIT (A) has also not examined the issue in detail but has simply confirmed the penalty by relying on the findings of the AO. However, there is no finding by the authorities below on the issue as to how the ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’ has come to be established so as to warrant imposition of penalty. In the instant case it cannot be said that the assessee withheld any relevant information regarding the claim of depreciation from the AO. The amount of depreciation disallowed was the amount disclosed by the assessee itself. With regard to the provisions of section 271(1)(c ) of the Act pertaining to penalty, the Hon’ble Apex court has authoritatively laid down that making of a claim by the assessee which is not sustainable will not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows: 1. “A glance at this provision would suggest that in order to be covered, there has to be concealment of particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The present is not a case of concealment of income. That is not the case of the Revenue either. However, the Ld. Counsel for the revenue suggested that by making incorrect claim for the expenditure on interest, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. As per Law Lexicon, the meaning of the word "particular" is a detail or details (in plural sense); the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the word "particulars" used in the section 271 (1) (c) would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made. It is an admitted position in the present case that no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It is not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect. Hence, at least, prima facie, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The learned counsel argued that "submitting an incorrect claim in law for the expenditure on interest would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income." We do not think that such can be the interpretation of the concerned words. The words are plain and simple. In order to expose the assessee to the penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.”

5.2 Although, both the lower authorities have held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars, on a consideration on the facts, such a view is not tenable is the present appeal. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) we delete the penalty.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.06.2018