2019 (7) TMI 740 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decision on penalties for AY 2009-10

Income Tax Officer- 10 (3) (2), Mumbai Versus Shri Kantilal G. Kotecha

Income Tax Officer- 10 (3) (2), Mumbai Versus Shri Kantilal G. Kotecha - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Denial of deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue 1: Deletion of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c)The core issue is whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee, an individual running a proprietary concern, converted it into a public limited company and transferred all assets, including self-generated goodwill, to the company in exchange for equity shares. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 47(xiv) of the Act, which the Assessing Officer (AO) denied on the grounds that the self-generated goodwill was not recorded in the books and thus not eligible for exemption.The CIT(A) observed that the proprietary concern had been in existence for 30 years, generating considerable goodwill, and the absence of goodwill in the balance sheet did not negate its existence. The CIT(A) found the assessee's explanation bona fide, noting that the AO had accepted part of the goodwill claim and granted partial exemption. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars of income, as all relevant details were provided in the return of income, and there was no malafide intention.Upon appeal, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had provided a reasonable explanation for not reflecting the goodwill in the balance sheet and that the AO had partially accepted the goodwill claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's belief in the exemption was bona fide and that the case involved a genuine difference of opinion rather than furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal also distinguished the case from the Supreme Court decision in Mak Data, noting that there was no malafide intention or incorrect information provided by the assessee.Issue 2: Denial of Deduction under Section 54The second issue pertains to the penalty levied due to the denial of deduction under Section 54 of the Act. The assessee sold a house property and claimed a deduction for the purchase of a new property. The AO denied the deduction on the grounds that the new property was purchased outside the stipulated period and was jointly held with the assessee's wife. The AO levied a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, noting that the Tribunal had allowed the deduction to the extent of payments made within the prescribed period. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had a bona fide belief in the deduction claim and that the details provided were accurate. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessee had no malafide intention and that the AO's denial of the deduction was based on details already provided by the assessee.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s deletion of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) for both the denial of exemption under Section 47(xiv) and the deduction under Section 54. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had provided bona fide explanations and accurate particulars, and the disputes involved genuine differences of opinion rather than malafide intentions or inaccurate information.