Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against a penalty of Rs. 2,51,174/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was imposed due to a disallowance/addition of Rs. 8,12,857/-, representing the difference between gross receipts reported in the Profit and Loss account and those reflected in Form 26AS, which the lower authorities deemed as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the discrepancy between the P&L Account and Form 26AS figures indicated a dispute over revenue recognition rather than inaccurate particulars of income. Citing CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
Key Issues
Whether a difference between gross receipts reported in the Profit & Loss account and those in Form 26AS constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, justifying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
O R D E R
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16, arises against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 10.06.2024 in case No. ITBA/NFACIS/250/2024-25/1065521685(1) in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
Mr. Bansal vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly levied the impugned Section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs. 2,51,174/- related to quantum disallowance/ addition of Rs. 812857/- which represents difference between its gross receipts in Profit and Loss account of Rs. 1,17,83,370/- vis-à-vis that of Rs. 1,25,96,727/- going by the corresponding figures in Form 26AS. His case accordingly is that the assessee has rightly been held as having filed inaccurate particulars of its income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
I have given thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and the Revenue’s vehement contentions. I see no reason to uphold the impugned penalty as a perusal of the case file indicates that the foregoing difference between the assessee’s P&L Account vis-à-vis Form 26AS figures more involves an instance of dispute regarding revenue recognition than that of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. I accordingly, delete the impugned penalty in very terms in light of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC). Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/12/2024.