2016 (11) TMI 795 - HC - Income Tax

Court quashes penalties for lack of evidence under Income-tax Act sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c)

The Court quashed the order under section 264 of the Income-tax Act and set aside the penalty imposed under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) due to the ... Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Held that:- The penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not sine qua non when there is no concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Merely because there is difference between the income returned and income assessed as a result of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, it cannot be said that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case, outstanding expenses were not believed by the Assessing Officer but outstanding debt was believed. The authority ought to have either believed both or disbelieved both outstanding expenses and outstanding debt. There is no finding to the effect that the details furnished by the assessee are incorrect or false. In that view of the matter, relying on the decision of the apex court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT], no penalty can be leviable. Hence the order dated February 25, 2008 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat, under section 264 of the Act is quashed and set aside and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated August 30, 2006 is also quashed and set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee Issues:Challenge to order under section 264 of Income-tax Act, 1961 - Dismissal of revision petition - Penalty imposition under section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) - Allegations of concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.Detailed Analysis:1. Challenge to Order under Section 264:The petitioner challenged the order passed under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat, dismissing the revision petition. The petitioner contended that the penalty imposed was not justifiable based on the circumstances of the case.2. Penalty Imposition under Section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c):The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of &8377; 6,96,630 under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) after disallowing certain expenses claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, citing relevant legal precedents.3. Allegations of Concealment and Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars:The petitioner's counsel contended that the penalty order lacked justification as there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Legal precedents were cited to support the argument, emphasizing that differences between returned and assessed income do not automatically imply concealment.4. Legal Precedents and Court Decisions:The petitioner relied on various court decisions, including the Supreme Court and High Court judgments, to argue against the penalty imposition. These decisions highlighted the importance of proper assessment and the absence of concealment or inaccurate particulars to justify penalties under the Income-tax Act.5. Court's Decision:After considering the arguments and legal precedents, the Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat, under section 264 of the Act. Additionally, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) was also quashed and set aside based on the lack of evidence supporting concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.6. Conclusion:The petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the necessity for proper assessment and the absence of concealment or inaccurate particulars to justify penalties under the Income-tax Act.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, legal precedents cited, and the final decision rendered by the Court in favor of the petitioner.