2014 (1) TMI 1628 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Penalty for Concealing Income by Misreporting Bad Debts as Trading Loss

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Disallowance of bad debts - Held that:- voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he has to be absolved from penalty - assessee has not brought anything on record to establish that the wrong claim in the return of income is actuated by any bona fide act or arises out of debatable issue and therefore the decision of the hon'ble apex court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ] is not applicable in the case of the assessee - consequence would be that the persons who make claims of this nature would otherwise get away without paying the tax legally payable by them, if their cases are not picked up for scrutiny. In view of the aforementioned discussion, we are of the view that the assessee's case attracts the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer - Order of CIT(A) upheld - Decided against assessee. Issues:Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealing income by claiming bad debts as trading loss.Analysis:1. The appeal was against the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) for concealing income by claiming bad debts as trading loss. The assessee had withdrawn its claim of bad debts during assessment proceedings, leading to penalty proceedings. The contention was that the advance written off was in the nature of trading loss, not concealment. However, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded.2. On appeal, the assessee argued that the advance written off was due to the winding up of the debtor company, which was disclosed in the audited accounts. The assessee claimed it as bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Despite withdrawing the claim during assessment, the penalty was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee contended proper disclosure was made, and penalty should not be levied automatically.3. During the appeal hearing, the authorized representative highlighted the reply to the show-cause notice, emphasizing that the write-off was shown as trading loss in the profit and loss account. The argument was supported by legal precedents. The Departmental representative opposed, stating the claim was not justified, and the reasons for not providing details were insufficient. The Tribunal analyzed the contentions and evidence presented by both sides.4. The Tribunal found that the claim of bad debts as trading loss lacked evidence and explanation. The nature of the advance was not for trading purposes but for acquiring a new business asset. The voluntary withdrawal of the claim during assessment did not absolve the assessee from penalty. The Tribunal cited legal precedents to support its decision and agreed with the Revenue's contention regarding tax evasion.5. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealing income by wrongly claiming bad debts as trading loss was upheld.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the legal precedents cited, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealing income.