2018 (5) TMI 1015 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds deletion of penalty, emphasizing inadvertent errors & tax-neutral impact of expenditure adjustment.

The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee, emphasizing the inadvertent nature of the mistakes made and ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - wrong claim of the cost of construction - Held that:- The whole restriction of cost of construction out of WIP in the current year to the tune of ₹ 57,80,000/- and carrying forward the excess cost of construction to the extent of ₹ 1,76,68,705/- is tax neutral as it is not a disallowance or excess claim but a reduction in the claim of the cost of construction which has correspondingly resulted into higher cost of WIP to be carried forward for being claimed as cost of construction in the subsequent years against the sales of the said project. In the case of CIT vs Somany Evergree Knits Ltd (2013 (4) TMI 154 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that where there was a bonafide mistake on the part of the assessee, the imposition of penalty is not warranted where the Revenue does not dispute the same. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Acceptance of contention regarding mistake by the Auditor2. Reduction of claim of expenditure after show cause notice3. Praying for setting aside Ld. CIT(A)'s order and restoring AO's orderIssue 1: The first issue revolves around the acceptance of the contention by the Ld. CIT(A) that a mistake occurred due to an error on the part of the Auditor. The Revenue raised concerns about the correctness of accepting the mistake as attributed to the Auditor. The Revenue contended that the Auditor's error led to an excessive claim of expenditure, resulting in a loss. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the mistake in not restricting the expenditure to 20% was a bona fide error made by the Auditor during the finalization of the return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that the assessee acknowledged the mistake by filing a revised computation of income during the assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that while the income should be taxed, no penalty should be imposed as penalty proceedings are separate. The penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was deemed inappropriate and was subsequently deleted.Issue 2: The second issue pertains to the reduction of the claim of expenditure by the assessee after receiving a specific show cause notice. The Revenue contended that the assessee voluntarily reduced its claim of expenditure after the notice was issued, implying that the initial claim was excessive. The Ld. CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal by considering the mistake as inadvertent and not deliberate. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee rectified the error by revising the computation of income. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the reduction in the claim of expenditure was due to a genuine mistake and not an attempt to conceal income. The Ld. CIT(A) highlighted that the penalty proceedings should be viewed independently from the assessment of income.Issue 3: The third issue involves the Revenue's plea to set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and restore the AO's order. The Revenue argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee. The Revenue contended that the assessee's excessive claim of expenditure led to a suppression of income. However, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the deletion of the penalty, emphasizing that the assessee rectified the mistake in good faith. The Ld. CIT(A) reasoned that the restriction of the cost of construction in the current year was tax-neutral, as it did not result in a loss to the revenue. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and emphasizing the inadvertent nature of the mistake made by the assessee.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty, considering the inadvertent nature of the mistake made by the assessee and the tax-neutral impact of the adjustment in the claim of expenditure. The judgment underscored the importance of distinguishing between genuine errors and deliberate attempts to conceal income, as well as the need to view penalty proceedings independently from income assessment.