ITAT Cancels Penalties for Assessee under IT Act Sections

The ITAT deleted penalties imposed under sections 271B and 271(1)(c) of the IT Act in favor of the Assessee. For the penalty under section 271B, it was found that the Assessee had a bona fide belief that the commission income for the year was below the audit threshold, supported by a decision of the Gujarat High Court. Regarding the penalty under section 271(1)(c), the ITAT ruled that the income disclosure was not deliberate concealment, considering the nature of the business and accounting practices, and directed the penalty's deletion based on the Supreme Court's precedent in Reliance Petro Product Pvt. Ltd.

---

---

Issues:
1. Penalty u/s.271B of IT Act
2. Penalty u/s.271(1)(c)

Penalty u/s.271B of IT Act:
The Appeals were filed by the Assessee against the penalties confirmed by the CIT(A) under sections 271(1)(c) and 271B of the IT Act. The AO had levied the penalty under section 271B due to the failure of the Assessee to get its accounts audited as required under section 44AB. The AO excluded a portion of the commission income pertaining to a previous year, resulting in the total commission income exceeding the threshold for audit. The ITAT noted that the Assessee had appealed in a separate case where it was held that the income should not be taxed twice. The ITAT considered the segregation of income for different years and held that the Assessee was under a bona fide belief that the commission income for the year was below the audit threshold. Citing a decision of the Gujarat High Court, the ITAT concluded that the penalty under section 271B should be deleted as the Assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause.

Penalty u/s.271(1)(c):
The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was levied based on the Assessee's claim of commission income for a particular year, which the AO deemed should have been declared in a previous year. The Assessee explained that due to the nature of its business and accounting practices, it was challenging to ascertain the correct income without considering it in the year it was received. The First Appellate Authority upheld the penalty, emphasizing the requirement to offer income based on the mercantile system of accounting. However, the ITAT disagreed with this decision, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Reliance Petro Product Pvt. Ltd. The ITAT found that since the commission income was subject to TDS and disclosed following a particular accounting method, it was not a deliberate concealment of income. Consequently, the ITAT directed the deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c).

In conclusion, both penalties under sections 271B and 271(1)(c) were deleted by the ITAT in favor of the Assessee based on different legal grounds and interpretations of the facts presented during the proceedings.

---