Tribunal: No Penalty for Accurate Disclosure but Upheld for Receipt Difference.

The Tribunal ruled that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified for the disallowed interest amounts due to accurate disclosure of material facts by the appellant. However, the penalty was upheld for the difference in receipt disclosure, with the Assessing Officer directed to calculate the penalty at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. The appeal was partly allowed, with the decision issued on 13.07.2016.

---

---

Issues:
- Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10.

Analysis:
1. Capitalization of Interest:
- The Assessing Officer levied a penalty for disallowance of interest amounting to &8377; 9,42,000 and &8377; 1,50,980, which was capitalized. The appellant argued that no money was borrowed for the purpose of investment in the plot or construction of the building. The appellant's own funds exceeded the investment amount, and the interest-free funds were more than five times the investment. Citing a recent High Court case, the appellant contended that the disallowance of interest was not justified. The appellant accepted the assessment order due to tax neutrality but argued that penalty proceedings are separate and independent. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court decision to support that no penalty should be charged if no false information was provided.

2. Difference in Receipt Disclosure:
- The difference in the receipt as per TDS certificate and books of account was considered a clerical error by the appellant. The appellant argued that the amount was insignificant and did not warrant a penalty under section 271(1)(c). However, the Department argued that the appellant's actions fell within the ambit of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, citing relevant case laws to support their stance.

3. Judgment:
- The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) regarding the deduction of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for business purposes. Despite the disallowance of interest by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal found that the appellant's disclosure of material facts was accurate, and no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was justified for the disallowed interest amounts. However, the Tribunal upheld the penalty for the difference in receipt disclosure, directing the Assessing Officer to calculate the penalty at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded due to the discrepancy. The appeal was partly allowed, with the decision pronounced on 13.07.2016.

---