2012 (5) TMI 438 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds penalty for wrong commission claim under Income Tax Act - Appeal dismissed

Sumitomo Chemical India (P) Ltd. Versus JCIT

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the wrong claim of commission payment, ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - It is quite evident that the appellant had made wrong claim of deduction in respect of commission intentionally and inspite of a number of opportunities given to the appellant by the A.O. the said claim was not withdrawn suo-moto - As per the evidence before us in this case, we have to draw the inference that it was a deliberate or conscious attempt on the part of the assessee to manipulate the book result by passing the false entry of 'commission payment' to evade the tax. Admittedly, as per the reply filed by the assessee to the A.O. it was contended that the assessee has paid the commission to M/s. KAP Ltd. and only after investigation was started by the A.O. through DDI (Invt), New Delhi, assessee came forward claiming innocence and stated it was a bona fide mistake - Decided against the assessee Issues Involved:1. Justification of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the wrong claim of commission payment.2. Justification of penalty for the disallowed deduction towards bad debts written off.Detailed Analysis:1. Penalty for Wrong Claim of Commission Payment:The primary issue was whether the penalty levied by the A.O. under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for a wrong claim of commission payment amounting to Rs. 51,70,764/- was justified. The assessee claimed this amount as commission paid to M/s. Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. (KAP Ltd.) for sales of its products. However, upon investigation by the DDI (Inv.), New Delhi, KAP Ltd. denied receiving any commission from the assessee and stated they had no transactions with the assessee but had transactions with M/s. SC Enviro Agro India Pvt. Ltd., an associate concern of the assessee.The A.O. initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee argued that the commission was a bona fide mistake and was corrected once the error was realized. However, the A.O. was not convinced and levied a penalty of Rs. 30,43,000/-.The Ld. CIT (A) upheld the penalty, stating that the assessee had made a wrong claim intentionally and did not withdraw the claim even after several opportunities. The assessee only admitted the mistake after the DDI (Inv.)'s investigation. The Ld. CIT (A) concluded that the wrong claim was a deliberate attempt to evade tax, thus justifying the penalty.2. Penalty for Disallowed Deduction Towards Bad Debts Written Off:The second issue was the penalty for the disallowed deduction of Rs. 31,09,032/- towards bad debts written off. The A.O. disallowed this amount, stating that the burden was on the assessee to prove that they had no expectation of recovery and that proper information about the debtor was not obtained. However, the Ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty related to the bad debts, as the Hon'ble Tribunal had already deleted the said addition in the case of the appellant.Tribunal's Conclusion:The Tribunal reviewed the facts and evidence, including the assessee's replies and the investigation report by the DDI (Inv.), New Delhi. It was found that the assessee had claimed the commission payment as a deduction despite knowing it was not payable or paid to KAP Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's actions were a conscious attempt to evade tax by manipulating the book results. Therefore, the penalty levied by the A.O. was justified, and the appeal by the assessee was dismissed.Order Pronounced:The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the A.O. for the wrong claim of commission payment and dismissed the assessee's appeal. The order was pronounced in the open court on 28.10.2011.