Tribunal overturns penalty for incorrect TDS claim, emphasizing absence of tax evasion.

M/s. V.K. Lalco Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Ward 3 (3) (2), Mumbai

M/s. V.K. Lalco Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Ward 3 (3) (2), Mumbai - TMI Issues:
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for wrong claim of TDS without offering corresponding income to tax.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for a wrong claim of TDS without offering the corresponding income to tax. The AO observed that the TDS claimed by the assessee did not belong to them, and since the corresponding income was not offered, the claim was rejected, leading to penalty proceedings. The penalty was levied on the grounds of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. The assessee contended that the penalty was unjustified as there was no concealment or inaccurate particulars, but rather a wrong claim of TDS. The only addition in the assessment order was a disallowance under section 14A, and no addition was made concerning the TDS claim.

In the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on merits and the legal issue of not specifying the charge in the penalty notice. The CIT(A) referred to a relevant case law and emphasized that the assessee should have known about the lack of corresponding income to the TDS credit claimed. The CIT(A) also noted that the assessee participated in the penalty proceedings, thus receiving a fair opportunity to respond to the charges, falling under the provisions of section 292B of the Act.

Upon review, the Tribunal observed that the penalty was imposed for a wrong claim of TDS without offering the corresponding income to tax. The TDS in question did not belong to the assessee and was claimed based on Form No.26AS. The Tribunal highlighted that for penalty under section 271(1)(c) to apply, there must be concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, which was not the case here. The penalty calculation mechanism requires tax evasion for its imposition, which was absent in this scenario. Additionally, the penalty notices and order were issued mechanically without specifying the charges, contrary to legal requirements.

Relying on relevant case law, the Tribunal overturned the CIT(A)'s decision and directed the AO to delete the penalty, stating that no penalty was exigible on both technical and merit grounds. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, emphasizing the lack of concealment or inaccurate particulars in the TDS claim issue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the penalty was unjustified as there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, but rather a wrong claim of TDS without corresponding income offered to tax. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures in penalty imposition and highlighted the necessity of tax evasion for penalty under section 271(1)(c) to be applicable.