M/S. VANESA HERBALS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6547/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 October 2017AY 2009-105 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 Assessing Officer did not record satisfaction for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, nor did they demonstrate how the assessee concealed income or provided inaccurate details. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products, the Tribunal found the penalty unwarranted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was assessed at a higher amount than declared due to additions on account of advertisement expenses and disallowance under Section 14A. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated, and a penalty was imposed.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the Assessing Officer has not recorded specific findings of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and whether a claim not accepted by the Revenue amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 14A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU & SHRI L.P. SAHU

ORDER

PER H.S. SIDHU, JM

1.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the Order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-19, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2009-10 on the following grounds:-

1. That Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the ACIT, Circle 17(1), New Delhi for the assessment year 2009-10 – Penalty of Rs. 1,01,948/- confirmed by CIT(A).

2.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the additional evidences filed under Rule 46AB of the IT Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the written submissions submitted in support of grounds of appeal

against the order of CIT, Circle 17(1), dated 25.6.2012 u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act.

4. That appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend or delete any ground of the appeal at the time of hearing.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was completed vide order dated 27.12.2011 passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 at an income of Rs. 56,18,330/- as against declared income of Rs. 52,88,398/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the following additions were made:- a) On a/c of advertisement expenses : Rs. 3,28,653/- b) On a/c of disallowance u/s. 14A : Rs. 1,275/-

Rs. 3,29,928/- 2.1 Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing / concealing inaccurate particulars of its income were initiated at the time of assessment proceedings and notices issued to the assessee from time to time. The assesse has not filed further appeal against the additions. In response to notice u/s. 271(1)(c) the assessee filed its reply. The contention raised by the assessee was rejected and penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing / concealing inaccurate particulars of its income are imposed. The AO held that it is established that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income and liable to penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of addition of Rs.32,29,928/- made in the returned income of the assessee and made the penalty of Rs. 1,01,948/- u/s. 271(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 25.6.2012.

3.

Against the above Penalty Order dated 25.6.2012 passed by the Assessing Officer, assessee appealed before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who vide impugned order dated 17.10.2014 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

Against the above order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 17.10.2014, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

As per the assessee’s counsel contention, there was no satisfaction for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and AO has not pointed out that how the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such some and how much of income has been concealed. It was further submitted that AO has not considered any reply. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,01,948/- does not attract any penalty. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (2010) Taxman 322.

6.

On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below and requested that the Appeal of the Assessee may be dismissed.

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the orders of the authorities below, we find that in this case no satisfaction for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars was recorded for penalty of Rs.7,60,512/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. We further note that AO has not pointed out that how the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such some and how much of income has been concealed. We further note the AO observed that assessee furnished inaccurate particulars and concealment of its income and is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c), which did not establish from the facts and circumstances of the case that how the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealment of income. However, Section 271(1)(c) postulates imposition of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.

In this regard, we draw my support from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR-158 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 'where there is no findings that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, there is no question of inviting the penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount of furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing a inaccurate particulars of income. As the assessee has furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. Merely, because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature".

8.

In the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedent, we are of the considered view that the assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income and there are no findings of the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) that the details furnished by the assessee in his return are found to be inaccurate or erroneous or false. Under these circumstances, in our view the penalty in dispute is totally unwarranted and deserve to be deleted. Accordingly, we delete the penalty of Rs. 1,01,948/- made u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act and cancel the orders of the authorities below on the issue in dispute.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10/10/2017.

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 →