2017 (4) TMI 53 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal granted, penalty deleted under section 271(1)(c) for 2008-09. Charges must be specific, material disclosed.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment ... Penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee claimed short-term capital loss on sale of shares - Held that:- There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee had placed all materials before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that the assessee concealed the factum of the transaction from the Assessing Officer. The assessee claimed short-term capital loss on sale of shares. This transaction was duly reflected by the assessee. The Revenue’s contention is that this transaction is colorable device to avoid liability of capital gain tax on account of sale of long-term capital asset. It is also undisputed that the assessee had disclosed all the materials before the authorities below and the law is well settled that penalty proceedings and quantum proceedings are two different and distinct proceedings. The claim of the assessee was reiterated on the ground that in quantum the assessee has claimed short-term capital loss on account of sale of shares. A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. See COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ] - Decided in favour of assessee Issues:Appeal against penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2008-09.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Initiation of Penalty ProceedingsThe case involved the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings without specifying the charge in the assessment order, which was contested by the assessee. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory was cited, emphasizing that specific conditions must be discernible from the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings. The lack of specific charges in the penalty order indicated a lack of merit in the penalty imposition.Issue 2: Disclosure of Material by AssesseeIt was established that the assessee had disclosed all relevant materials before the Assessing Officer, indicating no concealment of facts. The Revenue's contention that the transaction was a colorable device to avoid capital gain tax was refuted based on the assessee's disclosure of the transaction. The distinction between penalty and quantum proceedings was highlighted, reinforcing that the penalty cannot be imposed solely based on the non-acceptance of the assessee's explanation.Issue 3: Judgment PrecedentsThe judgment referred to the case of M/s Reliance Patroproducts Pvt. Ltd., where it was clarified that the mere non-acceptance of a claim by the Assessing Officer does not automatically warrant a penalty under section 271(1)(c). The judgment emphasized that the assessee's furnishing of accurate details in the return should not be misconstrued as concealment. In the present case, the rejection of the assessee's claim on the grounds of genuineness did not justify the penalty imposition, aligning with the legal principles outlined in the judgment.Conclusion:The Tribunal, considering the legal precedents and the facts of the case, allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2008-09. The judgment underscored the importance of specific charges, disclosure of material, and adherence to legal principles in penalty proceedings, ensuring fairness and adherence to the law.