2016 (5) TMI 617 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT upholds CIT(A) decision, dismisses penalty under Section 271(1)(c)

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which ... Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - the financing or investing in distribution of film is not connected with the main object of the assessee company - Held that:- Since the onus is always on the AO to prove as to what particulars of income has been concealed by the assessee or what inaccurate particulars have been furnished by the assessee. In the present case the ld. DR was not in a position to convince us as to what particulars furnished by the assessee are inaccurate. Except submitting that claiming capital loss as business loss, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars. After the co-joint reading of all the arguments cited by the CIT(A) in his order we are of the considered view that mere rejection of legal claim would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars and our view is fortified by Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement of “CIT vs. Reliance Petroprouducts Pvt. Ltd” [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided against revenue Issues Involved:1. Deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income resulting in concealment of income.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which deleted the penalty of Rs. 38,58,750/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Revenue contended that the assessee had intentionally claimed a capital loss as a business loss, thereby furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to reduce tax liability. The Revenue argued that the payment made by the assessee for acquiring distribution rights of a film was a capital expenditure and not a business loss.The assessee countered by asserting that all particulars of income and expenditure were fully disclosed in the return, and merely rejecting a legal claim does not warrant the imposition of a penalty. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court judgment in 'CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Private Ltd.' and the ITAT Pune Bench decision in 'Kanbay Software India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT' to support their argument that the rejection of a legal claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) examined the facts and the relevant legal principles. The CIT(A) had noted that the penalty could be initiated on two charges: (1) concealment of particulars of income and (2) furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A) emphasized that there must be a clear finding on which charge the penalty is based. In this case, the CIT(A) found that the assessee had disclosed all relevant particulars and that the claim made was a legal one, albeit rejected by the tribunal. The CIT(A) concluded that making a claim that is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the assessee's main object included financing and investing, which covered the transaction in question. The Tribunal found that the assessee had disclosed the loss from the film distribution venture in its profit and loss account and balance sheet. The Tribunal also reviewed the communications and agreements between the assessee and the other party involved in the film distribution venture, confirming the genuineness of the transaction.The ITAT concluded that the Revenue failed to prove that the assessee had concealed any particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere rejection of a legal claim does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars, citing the Supreme Court judgment in 'CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.' The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere with the findings.2. General Grounds:The ITAT noted that the general grounds raised by the Revenue did not require separate adjudication in light of the decision on the main issue.Conclusion:The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which deleted the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal concluded that the mere rejection of a legal claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and the Revenue failed to demonstrate any concealment or inaccuracy in the particulars furnished by the assessee.