Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(38) for LTCG on share sales. The AO, based on investigation wing inputs, confronted the assessee about the shares being penny stocks. The assessee subsequently surrendered the LTCG and paid taxes, but the AO levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) arguing the surrender was not voluntary.
Held
The tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable as the assessee had voluntarily disclosed the income and paid taxes, thus not jeopardizing the revenue. The AO failed to provide specific evidence that the disclosure was not voluntary or how inaccurate particulars were furnished, making the penalty arbitrary and bad in law.
Key Issues
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when income is surrendered and taxes paid after detection by the AO, and if such surrender constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Sections Cited
Section 10(38), Section 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM
The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 08.10.2025 for the assessment year 2014-15 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
2. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee had filed return of income for the year under consideration declaring income and claiming exemption u/s.10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( for short ‘the Act’) in respect of LTCG on sale of shares of M/s. NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. That during the assessment proceedings, the A.O based on the inputs from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata confronted the assessee with the findings that the scrip belonged to the category of penny stocks used for accommodation entries. Subsequently, the assessee had surrendered the LTCG of Rs.17,37,600/- voluntarily, offered for tax and paid taxes thereon. This aspect is brought out in the penalty order itself which is acknowledged by the A.O. The relevant para is extracted as follows: “The Assessing Officer has considered the entire facts and assessed the income on the basis of material gathered during the course of assessment proceedings. The explanation given by the assessee that penalty proceedings may be dropped as the entire amount arising out of long term capital gain has been offered for taxation is not acceptable. The surrender of income in this case was not voluntary because the offer of surrender was made after the detection made by the 3 Sangeeta Golchha Vs. ITO-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)
Assessing Officer. Had it been the intention of the assesse to make full and true disclosure of its income, it would have filed the return declaring an income accordingly, which was surrendered later during the course of assessment proceedings. The law does not provide that when the assesse makes a surrender of his concealed income, he is absolved from penalty.”
In this factual background, the A.O levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on the ground that surrendering of income by the assessee and full and true disclosure of such income was not done by the assessee voluntarily and it was surrendered only after detection made by the A.O.
I have carefully considered the documents on record, heard the rival contentions, analyzed the facts and circumstances in this case. This is a case where the assessee had surrendered LTCG of Rs.17,37,600/- and offered it to tax and paid taxes thereon. There is no dispute about this fact. The A.O imposed penalty of Rs.5,36,950/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income solely on the ground that the reasons for disclosure by the assessee and surrendering of LTCG was due to the confrontation made by the A.O and therefore, if it was not done by the A.O, the assessee, therefore, had filed inaccurate particulars of income and was liable for penalty under the said provisions. It is a matter of common knowledge that the assessment proceeding and penalty proceedings are two separate process altogether. Levy of penalty is not 4 Sangeeta Golchha Vs. ITO-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) automatic as a result of any outcome from the assessment. That so far as Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, penalty cannot be levied either for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in a routine and casual manner by the Department. In this case, the assessee had voluntarily disclosed the amount and offered it to tax and paid taxes thereon. The positon of Revenue, therefore, is not compromised by not paying of adequate taxes. That further, there is no evidence on record by the Department to even suggest that disclosure was not voluntarily done by the assessee. That in absence of any such specific evidence, imposition of penalty in this case is merely based on guess work, surmises and on suspicion. There is no statutory mandate for levying penalty on mere suspicion basis and the fact of the matter is that when the quantum itself has been settled through voluntary disclosure and taxes have been paid thereon, penalty proceedings itself does not have any legal sustainability. In my considered view, therefore, imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the quantum income which itself has been settled by way of taxes paid to the Department, is therefore, an Act of arbitrariness being perverse and bad in law, hence quashed. The same view has been upheld by the ITAT, Division Bench, Raipur in the case of DCIT-1(1), Raipur Vs. Ajay Golchha, dated 20.11.2025 and the relevant pars are extracted as follows:
5 Sangeeta Golchha Vs. ITO-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)
“5. That as discernable from the fore-going paras, basis of addition, on which penalty was levied was with regard to claim of exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act. That facts brought on record as afore-stated clearly demonstrates that the assessee in his submission has stated that the assessee withdraws the claim of exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC observed that since the assessee has surrendered his claim of long term capital gain which was made in the return of income and that since no enquiry to disprove the same has been made by the department and just because, addition has been made and that too when the assessee has withdrawn such claim, the facts do not per se become sufficient for imposition of penalty. The A.O has not made out any case for imposition of penalty as to how and in what manner the assesse had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which is hereby upheld.
As per the above terms grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed.”
5. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances as well as the settled principles emanating in the aforesaid decision, on the same parity of reasoning, it is held that the A.O has not made out any case for imposition of penalty as to how and in what manner the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty cannot be imposed in a casual and automatic manner particularly in a case where the Revenue is not jeopardized since the assessee has already disclosed LTCG and paid taxes thereon to the Department.
6. Accordingly, I set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and the penalty imposed by the A.O u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed.
As per the above terms grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on 17th day of February, 2026.