2016 (2) TMI 167 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds penalty for inaccurate income disclosure, emphasizes accurate reporting

M/s ICICI Bank Ltd., (erstwhile Bank of Madura Ltd.) Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I (2), Chennai

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of ... Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - bogus transaction of sale and purchase of asset - Held that:- The assessee is a banking company and claimed before the Assessing Officer that it entered into the sale and lease back transaction. The claim of the assessee that the asset was originally belonged to a particular person, was proved to be wrong. In fact, the invoices were forged in the name of the assessee. On examination, the suppliers of the asset confirmed that they did not issue any invoice in the name of the assessee. When the assessee was cornered on all the four corners and it was found to be a bogus transaction of sale and purchase of asset, the assessee withdrew the claim of depreciation. Therefore, it is not a case of making a claim after furnishing all the particulars of income. It is a case of making a claim on the basis of the so-called bogus transaction. The suppliers of the asset clarified that no transaction was entered into with the assessee. Therefore, it is a clear case of furnishing inaccurate particulars in the form of forged invoices and thereby concealed the particulars of income of the assessee. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority. - Decided against assessee Issues:- Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by claiming bogus depreciation.Analysis:1. The appeal was against the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by claiming bogus depreciation. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation claims made by the assessee related to assets purchased and leased out during the relevant year. The appellant argued that the transactions were entered into in good faith based on invoices produced, and the claim for depreciation should not be considered as bogus. The appellant cited the judgment in Mak Data P. Ltd. v. CIT to support their argument that surrendering a claim does not imply inaccurate particulars of income. However, the Departmental Representative contended that previous transactions were deemed bogus, and the appellant was not entitled to depreciation. The Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the transactions, including forged invoices and untraceable suppliers, leading to the conclusion that the appellant furnished inaccurate particulars of income.2. The Tribunal examined the case and found that the appellant's claims were not substantiated. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on certain transactions, indicating discrepancies and inconsistencies. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had withdrawn the depreciation claim upon scrutiny, suggesting that the claim was based on false information. Citing a similar case, the Tribunal emphasized that making a wrong claim based on forged documents constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's actions amounted to concealing income details, as the transactions were found to be bogus. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, agreeing with the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to confirm the penalty.3. In summary, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by claiming bogus depreciation. The decision was based on the findings that the transactions were not genuine, with forged invoices and unverifiable suppliers, leading to the conclusion that the appellant concealed income details. The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as confirmed by the CIT(Appeals), emphasizing the importance of accurate disclosure of income particulars to avoid penalties for misrepresentation.