2019 (1) TMI 91 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds Revenue's appeal dismissals, affirms lower authority's decisions on disallowances and penalties.

The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals filed by the Revenue, confirming the orders of the lower authority. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Excess amount received over and above the premium to be treated as income of the assessee - Held that:- There is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The question whether the excess amount received over and above ₹ 1,26,73,685/- was income of the assessee is a matter to be decided by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, this cannot be considered to be a concealment of income. The assessee apparently disclosed pension plus regular policy availed from AVIVA Life Insurance company and also the amount received on surrender of policy. Therefore, even in this case, there is no concealment of income. The entire particulars were available before the Assessing Officer. Business expenditure disallowance the Assessing Officer found that a sum of ₹ 2,05,220/- was paid for security services of residence of the assessee. The fact remains that the entire facts were placed before the Assessing Officer and the assessee claimed the same as deduction. Mere claim, as rightly pointed out by the Ld.counsel, cannot be construed as concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income. Addition u/s 14A - the dividend income of ₹ 71,19,981/- was also disclosed by the assessee and the assessee claimed deduction as provided under Section 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer by applying Rule 8D of Income-tax Rules, 1962 disallowed ₹ 5,24,393/- out of ₹ 71,19,981/-. When the entire facts were available before the Assessing Officer, it cannot be said that there is a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Moreover, the interest on delayed payment of TDS was placed before the Assessing Officer and the assessee claimed deduction. It does not mean that the assessee has concealed particulars of income. Similarly, details of prepaid expenses of ₹ 1,98,990/- were also available before the Assessing Officer. Short term capital gain, the assessee retired from partnership firm with effect from 19.08.2008 and received a lump sum compensation from partnership firm over and above the capital contribution by way of immovable property. This was considered to be a short term capital gain. The fact remains that the assessee retired from partnership firm and received a lump sum compensation from the firm. This was disclosed before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there is no question of any concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In those circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the judgment of Apex Court in Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. - Decided in favour of assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - mere claim of expenditure would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealing any part of income. In view of the above, this Tribunal has no hesitation to confirm the order of the CIT(Appeals). Penalty levied u/s 271AAB - assessee offered an additional income under the head “Income from Other Sources' in search operations - Held that:- It is not the case of the Revenue that any incriminating or other material was found during the course of search operation which represents wholly or partly the undisclosed income of the assessee. It is a definite case of the Revenue that the assessee offered an additional income of ₹ 50 Crores. Therefore, offer made by the assessee is not admitted on the basis of any material or document, bullion, etc. Therefore, as rightly found by the CIT(Appeals), this cannot be construed as undisclosed income for the purpose of levy of penalty under Section 271AAB of the Act. Hence, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the penalty levied - Decided against revenue Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Disallowance of insurance receipts and business expenditures.3. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act.4. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.5. Penalty under Section 271AAB of the Income-tax Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:The Revenue filed a petition for condonation of a 3-day delay in filing the appeal in I.T.A. No.2382/Chny/2016. The Tribunal found that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted.2. Disallowance of Insurance Receipts and Business Expenditures:The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 1,66,96,393 towards insurance receipts and Rs. 90,86,349 towards business expenditure. The disallowance included amounts for insurance policies, business expenditures, and personal expenditures. The Tribunal noted that the assessee disclosed all relevant details, including the insurance premium and receipts, and found no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal concluded that the disallowances were based on the Assessing Officer's interpretation and did not constitute concealment of income.3. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act:The assessee received dividend income of Rs. 71,19,981 and claimed it as exempt. The Assessing Officer applied Section 14A and disallowed Rs. 5,24,393. The Tribunal observed that the entire facts were available before the Assessing Officer, and the disallowance was based on the application of Rule 8D. The Tribunal held that this did not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.4. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act:For the assessment year 2015-16, the assessee claimed Rs. 2,88,22,870 as expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim due to lack of substantiation and levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., held that mere disallowance of a claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to delete the penalty.5. Penalty under Section 271AAB of the Income-tax Act:During a search on 13.01.2015, the assessee admitted an additional income of Rs. 50 Crores under 'Income from Other Sources.' The Assessing Officer levied a penalty under Section 271AAB. The Tribunal noted that no incriminating material was found during the search, and the additional income was not based on any material or document. The Tribunal referenced the definition of 'undisclosed income' in Section 158B(b) and concluded that the additional income offered by the assessee did not qualify as undisclosed income for the purpose of penalty under Section 271AAB. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to delete the penalty.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals filed by the Revenue, confirming the orders of the lower authority. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(Appeals)'s decisions regarding the disallowances and penalties.