Penalty Revoked for Auto Parts Firm: ITAT Rules Error in Foreign Exchange Loss Claim Was Bona Fide, Not Tax Evasion.

The ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, an auto parts manufacturer in liquidation, by directing the deletion of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal found that the foreign exchange loss claim, initially disallowed, was a bona fide error without intent to evade tax. Citing precedents from the SC, the ITAT concluded that the penalty was unjustified, thereby allowing the appeal and revoking the penalty of Rs. 6,54,85,242/-.

---

---

Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for claiming foreign exchange loss as revenue expenditure.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] regarding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2012-13. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing auto parts, claimed a foreign exchange loss of Rs. 21.22 crores as revenue expenditure during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, resulting in a revised loss of Rs. 9.36 crores for the assessee. Subsequently, a penalty of Rs. 6,54,85,242/- was levied under section 271(1)(c) based on a High Court decision. The appellant argued that the foreign exchange loss was inadvertently not added back to the income due to an error by the tax auditor, following accepted accounting principles. The appellant contended that there was no intention to cause revenue leakage, and the error did not result in any actual revenue loss.

The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers [P] Ltd, emphasizing that a bona fide and inadvertent error should not lead to penalty imposition. It was highlighted that the appellant company was in liquidation, with a significant assessed loss, and at the end of its business, there was no benefit in claiming the forex loss as revenue expenditure. The appellant argued that the error was unintentional and did not result in any revenue loss. On the other hand, the Department supported the Assessing Officer's decision and referred to the High Court's decision in a similar case.

The tribunal, after considering the arguments and facts, observed that the appellant was in liquidation with no business operations and had disclosed the foreign exchange loss to the tax auditor. The tribunal noted that the inadvertent claim of expenditure should not automatically lead to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Citing the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Reliance Petro Products and Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd, the tribunal concluded that in this case, the penalty was not justified. Therefore, the tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was revoked.

---