Penalty Deleted for Inaccurate Particulars: Intent Must be Deliberate

The ITAT upheld the deletion of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, dismissing the department's appeal. The ITAT found that there was no deliberate intent in furnishing inaccurate particulars, as mens rea was not established. The judgment emphasized the necessity of establishing deliberate intent for imposing penalties, in line with legal precedents set by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

---

---

Issues:
1. Allowability of expenses claimed by the assessee.
2. Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Issue 1: Allowability of Expenses Claimed by the Assessee:

The case involved an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer observed a significant difference between the income declared and the expenses claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses of Rs. 66,29,006 claimed by the assessee, considering them as preoperative expenses due to the business operations not having commenced. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated, and a penalty of Rs. 20,47,864 was imposed. The Ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty, leading to the department challenging this deletion before the ITAT. The department argued that the expenses were not allowable as they were preoperative in nature. However, the ITAT found that the business had commenced, as evidenced by the sale of samples of wooden flooring. The ITAT also noted that the Assessing Officer did not doubt the genuineness of the expenses. The ITAT further referenced the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that for penalty u/s 271(1)(c), there must be a deliberate act of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, which was not the case here. Consequently, the ITAT upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT (A) and dismissed the department's appeal.

Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars of Income:

The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The department argued that the penalty was justified as the assessee had not appealed against the quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer. However, the ITAT found that all relevant information regarding the disallowed expenses was before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Citing the judgment in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., the ITAT highlighted that furnishing inaccurate particulars required mens rea, which was not established in this case. The ITAT concluded that the penalty was not warranted as the assessee had not furnished incorrect or inaccurate details in the return. Therefore, the ITAT upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT (A) to delete the penalty, dismissing the department's appeal.

In conclusion, the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, upholding the deletion of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) and dismissing the department's appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing deliberate intent in furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for the imposition of penalties, as per the legal precedents set by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

---