Tribunal sets aside penalty for inaccurate income particulars, orders fresh review of interest expenditure claim

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee company. The Tribunal directed a fresh consideration by the AO, emphasizing the need for comprehensive evidence to support the legitimacy of the claim for interest expenditure related to a canceled development project.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income, is leviable on the assessee company.
2. Whether the assessee company's claim for deduction of interest expenditure/financial charges was bona fide and legitimate.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars of Income:

The assessee company, engaged in the business of development and construction of complexes, claimed a deduction of Rs. 14,91,61,322/- as interest expenditure in its Profit & Loss account for the assessment year 2009-10. During the assessment proceedings, the AO questioned the legitimacy of this claim, leading the assessee company to withdraw the claim and file a revised computation of income. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, asserting that the withdrawal was prompted by the scrutiny assessment and not voluntary. The AO relied on the Supreme Court's decision in UOI v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors, emphasizing that claiming wrong or excessive deductions amounts to concealment of income.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the withdrawal of the claim was not voluntary but occurred after the AO's query. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee company did not provide evidence to support its claim, thus failing to discharge its onus of proof. The CIT(A) relied on the Supreme Court's decision in JCIT v. Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd., affirming that penalty is applicable even when returned losses are reduced. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee company furnished inaccurate particulars of income, justifying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

2. Bona Fide and Legitimacy of the Claim for Deduction of Interest Expenditure:

The assessee company argued that the interest expenditure was incurred for business purposes, related to advances given to HDIL for a proposed development project under an MOU, which was later canceled. The assessee company claimed that the interest was a legitimate business expense, disclosed in the computation of income. The assessee company contended that the withdrawal of the claim was to avoid litigation and due to the applicability of Section 79 of the Act, which would disallow the carry forward of losses due to a change in shareholding.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee company did not provide complete details and evidence to substantiate the bona fide nature of its claim. The Tribunal observed that the AO accepted the withdrawal without verification and invoked penalty provisions. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the assessee company to provide evidence of the loans obtained by the holding company on its behalf and the terms of the MOU with HDIL. The Tribunal set aside the penalty order and remanded the matter to the AO for de novo consideration, directing the assessee company to furnish all relevant evidence to substantiate its claim.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the penalty order and remanding the matter to the AO for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for the assessee company to provide comprehensive evidence to support the bona fide nature of its claim for interest expenditure.

---