Tax Tribunal Cancels Penalty of Rs. 3,24,450 for Good Faith; COVID-19 Delays Explained with Court Extensions.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order, quashing the penalty of Rs. 3,24,450 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal determined that the assessee acted in good faith by withdrawing the deduction claim upon discovering irregularities in the institute's activities. Additionally, the Tribunal justified the delay in pronouncing the order due to the COVID-19 lockdown, aligning with the Supreme Court and Bombay HC's extensions of limitations during the pandemic.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Determination of whether the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income.
3. Procedural compliance with the pronouncement of orders within the stipulated time frame.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Penalty Imposed under Section 271(1)(c):
The assessee, a life insurance agent, filed his return for A.Y 2013-14, declaring an income of Rs. 33,38,580/-. The income was later revised to Rs. 43,88,580/- after withdrawing a deduction claim of Rs. 10,50,000/- under Section 35(1)(ii) related to a contribution to the School of Human Genetics & Population Health. The Assessing Officer (A.O) initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, observing that the assessee had intentionally raised a false claim of deduction.

2. Determination of Whether the Assessee Concealed Income or Furnished Inaccurate Particulars of Income:
Upon receiving information from the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata, that the School of Human Genetics & Population Health was not conducting genuine activities, the A.O reopened the case under Section 147. The assessee, in response to the notice under Section 148, filed a revised return, withdrawing the earlier deduction claim. The Tribunal observed that although irregularities were found in the institute’s activities, no conclusive evidence proved that the assessee did not make a genuine contribution. The Tribunal referenced several judicial pronouncements where similar claims were accepted despite the institute's irregularities. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee acted in a bona fide manner by withdrawing the deduction claim upon learning about the institute's irregularities. The Tribunal held that the assessee’s explanation, though unproved, was not disproved, and thus, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be imposed.

3. Procedural Compliance with the Pronouncement of Orders within the Stipulated Time Frame:
The Tribunal addressed the delay in pronouncing the order beyond the 90-day period due to the nationwide lockdown imposed to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The Tribunal cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Bombay High Court's orders extending limitations due to the pandemic. The Tribunal concluded that the lockdown period should be excluded from the 90-day time limit for pronouncement of orders, following the pragmatic approach in light of the unprecedented situation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and quashed the penalty of Rs. 3,24,450/- imposed under Section 271(1)(c), concluding that the assessee’s conduct did not warrant the penalty. The Tribunal also justified the delay in pronouncing the order due to the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 lockdown.

---