Tribunal allows Cross Objections, cancels penalty for undisclosed income under Income Tax Act

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's Cross Objections after condoning a 5-day delay. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for interest income was deleted as the assessee had disclosed and offered the income for taxation. The penalty notice was deemed defective for not specifying the default, leading to its cancellation. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the Cross Objections were allowed in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing Cross Objections.
2. Deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for interest income.
3. Validity of penalty notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Cross Objections:
The assessee's Cross Objection was delayed by 5 days. The Tribunal heard the parties on this preliminary issue and, considering the reasons provided in the petition, condoned the delay and admitted the Cross Objections for hearing.

2. Deletion of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Interest Income:
The Revenue's primary grievance was the deletion of the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act concerning interest income of Rs. 56,81,911. The assessee's main grievance was the upholding of the penalty on the interest income of Rs. 37,71,024.

During assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee had received interest income of Rs. 50,28,374 and interest on FDRs of Rs. 6,53,537, totaling Rs. 56,81,911. However, the AO noted that the assessee did not offer Rs. 37,71,024 received from M/s. Bau Developer P. Ltd. for taxation in the relevant year and added it as undisclosed income, initiating penalty proceedings for concealment and/or filing inaccurate particulars of income.

The CIT(A) deleted the penalty for Rs. 56,81,911, noting that the assessee had disclosed the interest income in the financial statements and claimed it as eligible for deduction under Section 80IB. The CIT(A) relied on the decision in Roborant Investments Pvt. Ltd., holding that mere making of a claim that does not stand scrutiny cannot automatically lead to a penalty.

3. Validity of Penalty Notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act:
The assessee argued that the AO did not record any satisfaction while imposing the penalty, and the notice was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for "concealment of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." This non-application of mind was supported by the judgment in CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, which held that the AO must be clear about the specific charge.

The Tribunal noted that the penalty notice did not specify the default committed by the assessee, making it defective. The Tribunal cited the Karnataka High Court's decisions in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory and SSA’s Emerald Meadows, which held that such vagueness in the notice invalidates the penalty.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had disclosed the interest income in the financial statements and offered the Rs. 37,71,024 for taxation in the appropriate year (AY 2012-13). Thus, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty notice was defective as it did not specify the default, leading to the cancellation of the penalty. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee were allowed.

---