2016 (10) TMI 353 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Deletes Penalty for Genuine Mistake in Tax Claim: Emphasis on Full Disclosure

Shri Amit R Agarwal Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax

Shri Amit R Agarwal Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax - TMI Issues:Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on disallowance under section 94(7) of the Act.Analysis:The case involved an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-23, Mumbai pertaining to A.Y.2009-10. The primary issue raised was against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance of a specific amount under deeming provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. The assessee had declared a total loss in the return of income, which was selected for scrutiny. The assessment resulted in disallowances, including one related to dividend on mutual funds claimed as exempt under section 10(35) but treated as deemed interest under section 94(7). The penalty proceedings were initiated, and the AO imposed a penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the grounds of inadequate disclosure of income. The First Appellate Authority deleted the penalty on one disallowance but upheld it on the other, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal considered the submissions and facts, noting that the assessee fully disclosed the particulars of the disallowed amount in the return of income, attributing the error to a bonafide mistake by the accountant. The Tribunal referred to relevant legal precedents, including the case of Reliance Petro Products Ltd, to conclude that the penalty was wrongly upheld. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the penalty, allowing the appeal of the assessee.This judgment highlights the importance of full disclosure of income particulars and the impact of genuine mistakes on penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized the bonafide belief of the assessee and the accountant's inadvertent error in the context of disallowed claims. By referencing legal precedents, the Tribunal differentiated between cases where penalties are justified due to incorrect claims made without any basis and situations where penalties are not warranted when claims are made under a genuine belief, even if later found to be wrong. The decision underscores the need for a strict interpretation of penal provisions and the consideration of bonafide explanations for erroneous claims. Ultimately, the Tribunal's ruling favored the assessee, emphasizing the disclosure of facts and the absence of deliberate misrepresentation or concealment of income.