2019 (3) TMI 317 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal allowed: Penalty under Income Tax Act unjustified for non-disclosure.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was unjustified. It emphasized that disclosing all ... Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - change of head of income - assessee claimed the transactions relating to mutual fund constituted part of his business and loss to be treated as its business loss - AO treated the loss as ‘Short Term Capital Loss’ - HELD THAT:- Mere change of head of income should not result in automatic levy of penalty. The details about the ‘business loss’ or ‘Short Term Capital Loss’ were available on the record. Therefore, it cannot be said that assessee had filed ‘Inaccurate Particulars of Income’. Even if a unsubstantiated claim is made in the return of income, it cannot be held that the assessee is liable for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). Difference of opinion between the AO and the assessee about head of income under which ‘Particular Item’ is to be ‘assessed’ was and would remain a bone of contention between the AO and the assessee. But such differences should not and cannot result in invoking the penal provisions of chapter XXI of the Act. Therefore, we delete the penalty and allowed these grounds raised by the assessee. Issues:- Levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering facts and circumstances of the case.- Confirming penalty without creating charge for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.- Addition of capital loss on sale of Mutual Fund treated as business expense.- Alleged mismatch of AIR leading to penalty imposition.- Ground for adding, amending, altering, or deleting the appeal.Issue 1: Levying Penalty under Section 271(1)(c)The Appellant challenged the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Appellant claimed the loss from mutual fund transactions as a business loss, but the AO treated it as a short-term capital loss. The Appellant argued that the claim was bona fide and supported by evidence, referencing relevant case law. The Tribunal noted that mere unsustainable claims do not constitute inaccurate particulars of income, citing the decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro products. The Tribunal also referred to judgments by the Bombay High Court to support the view that penalty is not applicable when full details are disclosed, even if the claim is rejected.Issue 2: Addition of Capital Loss on Sale of Mutual FundThe Appellant contended that the loss from mutual fund transactions should be treated as a business loss, while the AO classified it as a short-term capital loss. The Tribunal analyzed relevant case law, including judgments by the Bombay High Court, to establish that the mere rejection of a claim does not automatically lead to a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the disclosure of all relevant details by the assessee, even if the claim is not accepted by the revenue authorities, does not warrant a penalty for concealment of income.Issue 3: Alleged Mismatch of AIRThe Appellant raised concerns regarding an alleged mismatch of AIR leading to penalty imposition. The Tribunal reviewed the facts of the case and reiterated that the difference of opinion between the AO and the assessee regarding the head of income should not trigger penalty provisions. The Tribunal emphasized that unsubstantiated claims in the return of income do not automatically render the assessee liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal, guided by legal precedents, concluded that the penalty should be deleted in such circumstances.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, citing that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified based on the facts and legal principles discussed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of disclosing all relevant details, even if the claims are not accepted, to avoid penalties for concealment of income. The judgment highlighted various legal precedents, including decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Bombay High Court, to support the decision to delete the penalty imposed by the revenue authorities.