2019 (8) TMI 925 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Penalty for Income Concealment, Emphasizes Genuine Claims in Tax Disputes

Hellion Finance & Leasing Private Ltd. Versus ITO 12 (2) (4) Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai

Hellion Finance & Leasing Private Ltd. Versus ITO 12 (2) (4) Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Justification of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Validity of the assessee's claims for set-off of business losses and unabsorbed depreciation against income from house property.3. Adherence to principles of natural justice in the appellate proceedings.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Justification of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):The primary issue was whether the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars was justified. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in justifying the penalty without any evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) relied on precedents such as *Commissioner of Income-tax v. Harparshad and Company Ltd.* and *CIT v. Escorts Finance Ltd.*, asserting that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability for loss of revenue, even if the claim is not proven false but is ex facie bogus. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, noting that the assessee's claim lacked bona fide and was a non-genuine act to reduce tax liability.2. Validity of Assessee's Claims for Set-off:The assessee had set off business losses and unabsorbed depreciation against income from house property, which the AO disallowed as there was no business activity during the year. The Tribunal previously upheld this disallowance, confirming that the assessee did not carry on any business during the year. The Tribunal reiterated that the assessee’s claim for set-off was untenable and lacked bona fide, as the only income was from house property, and no business activity was conducted. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court decision in *Raj Dadarkar & Associates v. ACIT*, which clarified that income from letting out commercial property is chargeable under 'Income from House Property' and not 'Business Income'.3. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice:The assessee failed to appear for multiple hearings, despite being duly served notices. The Tribunal noted that the assessee must be vigilant about its rights and duties while pursuing disputes in court. The repeated non-appearance indicated a lack of diligence on the assessee's part. The Tribunal proceeded to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the absence of the assessee, ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice by providing ample opportunities for the assessee to present its case.Conclusion:The Tribunal confirmed the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), emphasizing that the assessee's claim for set-off was non-genuine and lacked bona fide. The appeal was dismissed, and the penalty upheld, affirming the CIT(A)'s order and the AO's findings. The Tribunal's decision underscored the importance of genuine claims and the consequences of non-compliance with procedural requirements in tax litigation.