Penalty deletion for bona fide claim, upheld for undisclosed income post-search

For the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2004-05, the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) as the claim for deduction was found to be bona fide and made before a relevant court decision. No concealment was established, resulting in the penalty deletion. However, for A.Y. 2008-09, the Tribunal upheld the penalty as the additional income declared post-search was not disclosed in the original return, falling under Explanation-5A to Section 271(1)(c), leading to the penalty being sustained.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2004-05.
2. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2004-05:

The assessee appealed against the order confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,70,898/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of a deduction of Rs. 7,73,993/- claimed under Section 80IB on account of duty drawback. The assessee argued that there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

Facts:
- A search and seizure action under Section 132(1) and survey action under Section 133A were conducted on 09.02.2009.
- The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and trading stainless steel pipes and tubes, filed its return of income on 31.10.2004, claiming a deduction under Section 80IB.
- The deduction included an export incentive (duty drawback) of Rs. 84,94,114/-.
- The assessee accepted the disallowance of Rs. 7,73,993/- during the assessment proceedings based on prior adverse decisions.

Arguments:
- The assessee contended that the claim was made based on an auditor's report and certificate in Form No. 10CCB, and was thus bona fide.
- The claim was made before the Supreme Court's decision in Liberty India Vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218, which disallowed such deductions.
- The assessee cited the Allahabad High Court decision in CIT Vs. Arvind Footwear Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 72 DTR 294, which supported the deletion of penalty under similar circumstances.

Judgment:
- The Tribunal found that the claim was bona fide and based on the auditor's report and prior to the Liberty India decision.
- No income was found or offered as a result of the search, negating the applicability of Explanation-5A to Section 271(1)(c).
- The Tribunal referred to the Allahabad High Court decision, emphasizing that a mere unsustainable claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
- The penalty for A.Y. 2004-05 was deleted, and the appeal was allowed.

2. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2008-09:

The assessee appealed against the order confirming the penalty of Rs. 15,20,795/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) on an undisclosed income of Rs. 49,21,666/- declared in the return filed under Section 153A.

Facts:
- A search and seizure action was conducted on 09.02.2009.
- The assessee, part of a group, declared undisclosed income of Rs. 15,00,21,000/- for various assessment years.
- The original return for A.Y. 2008-09 was filed on 03.09.2008, declaring an income of Rs. 5,71,84,099/-.
- In response to a notice under Section 153A, the assessee filed a return on 17.08.2009, declaring total income of Rs. 6,21,05,565/-, including Rs. 49,21,666/- as undisclosed income.
- The additional income was based on seized documents showing unrecorded interest income.

Arguments:
- The assessee argued that the return filed under Section 153A replaces the original return, and the correct income was disclosed in response to the notice.
- The assessee contended that penalty should not be levied as the income was disclosed voluntarily.

Judgment:
- The Tribunal noted that Explanation-5A to Section 271(1)(c) applies to searches initiated after 01.06.2007 and does not provide immunity exceptions.
- The additional income was not declared in the original return filed before the search.
- The Tribunal upheld the penalty, stating that Explanation-5A deems the assessee to have concealed income not declared in the original return.
- The appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 was dismissed.

Conclusion:
- The appeal for A.Y. 2004-05 was allowed, and the penalty was deleted.
- The appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 was dismissed, and the penalty was upheld.

---