2021 (6) TMI 774 - HC - Income Tax

Supreme Court Affirms ITAT's Decision: Stock Broker Penalized for Inaccurate Income Reporting, Dismisses Appeals.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Versus T. Jayachandran, Prop. M/s. Chandrakala & Co.

The ITAT upheld the disallowance of payments made by the assessee, a stock broker, to PSUs for assessment years 1991-94, leading to penalties under ... Levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) - interest payable to the PSUs to assessed as an income of the Respondent depends - HELD THAT:- As decided in [2018 (4) TMI 1473 - SUPREME COURT] the conduct of the parties, as is recorded in the criminal proceedings showing the receipt of amount by the broker, the purpose of receipt and the demand drafts taken by the broker at the instance of the bank are sufficient to prove the fact that the Respondent acted as a broker to the Bank and, hence, the additional interest payable to the PSUs could not be held to be his property or income. The income that has actually accrued to the Respondent is taxable. What income has really occurred to be decided, not by reference to physical receipt of income, but by the receipt of income in reality. Given the fact that the Respondent had acted only as a broker and could not claim any ownership on the sum and that the receipt of money was only for the purpose of taking demand drafts for the payment of the differential interest payable by Indian Bank and that the Respondent had actually handed over the said money to the Bank itself, we have no hesitation in holding that the Respondent held the said amount in trust to be paid to the public sector units on behalf of the Indian Bank based on prior understanding reached with the bank at the time of sale of securities and, hence, the said sum cannot be termed as the income of the Respondent. Issues:- Disallowance of payments made by the assessee to Public Sector Undertakings during assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94.- Initiation of penalty proceedings and levy of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer.- Appeals filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequent appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.- Question of law regarding the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.Issue 1: Disallowance of Payments to Public Sector UndertakingsThe assessee, an individual and Proprietor of a Stock Broker firm, faced disallowance of payments made to Public Sector Undertakings during the assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer, leading to penalty proceedings initiated against the assessee. The Tribunal's order raised questions regarding the accuracy of income particulars furnished by the assessee.Issue 2: Penalty Proceedings and Levying of PenaltiesThe Assessing Officer levied substantial penalties amounting to &8377; 8,25,32,755/-, &8377; 1,40,55,563/-, and &8377; 17,68,928/- for the respective assessment years under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. These penalties were based on the assertion that the assessee provided inaccurate income particulars. Subsequent appeals were filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) challenging these penalties.Issue 3: Appeals and Legal ProceedingsAppeals were filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after the penalty orders were issued. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed these appeals on a later date. However, the Revenue filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, leading to a series of legal proceedings. Additionally, a Civil Appeal was filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against a previous High Court order.Issue 4: Question of Law Regarding Penalty LevyThe primary substantial question of law raised in the present appeals was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that deleted the penalty levy under Section 271(1)(c). This question was pivotal in determining the legality and justification of the penalties imposed on the assessee.The judgment delivered by the High Court involved a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the disallowance of payments to Public Sector Undertakings, the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer, subsequent appeals filed by the assessee, and the core question of law regarding the penalty levy upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The decision was influenced by the observations and conclusions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which emphasized the nature of the relationship between the assessee and the Indian Bank concerning the transactions in question. The Supreme Court's ruling highlighted the role of the assessee as a broker, the handling of funds, and the purpose behind the transactions, ultimately leading to the dismissal of all appeals based on the established facts and legal principles elucidated in the judgment.