2021 (9) TMI 243 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal overturns penalty citing valid explanations and genuine submissions.

M/s. Shree Krishna Plastic Process Pvt. Ltd. Versus The DCIT, Corporate Circle – 6 (1), Chennai.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). It found the assessee's explanations for transactions valid, noting ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition towards unexplained cash credit - Penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - as argued assessee has shown purchases of stock-in-trade from the sister concern and passed necessary journal entries by debiting purchases into opening stock and crediting to party account under the head ‘sundry creditors’ - HELD THAT:- On perusal of reasons given by the AO we understood is the AO has completely mis-stated the facts without understanding the principles of accountancy, which is evident from the fact that although the assessee has passed entries for purchase in its books of accounts by debiting to purchase account and crediting to sundry creditors account, the AO has stated that the assessee has purchased the goods in the earlier financial year and has not recorded the same in the books of accounts of the assessee. Assessee has explained the transactions with necessary evidences and has also furnished necessary details before the AO to determine its taxable income - there is no effect on the profit / loss or taxable income for the impugned assessment year - when the assessee has explained the entries with necessary evidences and said explanation is not found to be false, then merely for the reason that assessee had accepted addition made towards particular income is not a ground to hold that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, which warrants levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) without appreciating facts, has simply confirmed penalty levied by the AO. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.2. Addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit.3. Presentation of balance sheet and adjustment of trade payables and stock.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income:The assessee argued that as per Section 271(1)(c)(iii), penalty can only be levied when there is a tax liability. Since the assessee had declared a loss of Rs. 1,86,62,094, which was later reduced to Rs. 2,08,899 after assessment, there was no positive income or tax liability, and hence, no penalty could be imposed. The assessee cited the Madras High Court's decision in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Kamy Software Solutions (P) Ltd., which stated that penalty could only be levied when there is a positive income resulting in tax.2. Addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit:The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 1,84,54,195 as unexplained credit under Section 68, arguing that the assessee had not provided sufficient explanation for the credit. The assessee countered that the amount was a book adjustment and not an actual cash transaction, citing the case of V. R. Global Energy Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (Madras High Court), which held that Section 68 does not apply to book adjustments where no cash is involved.3. Presentation of balance sheet and adjustment of trade payables and stock:The assessee had increased trade payables by Rs. 1,23,65,200 and stock by Rs. 1,92,13,874 while reducing trade receivables by Rs. 68,48,674 in the opening balance sheet as of 01/04/2013. This adjustment was later rectified in the 2016 financials. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, arguing that the assessee had not made corresponding entries for stock transfer and sundry creditors in the previous financial year.Condonation of Delay:The assessee filed a petition for condonation of a 109-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the ill-health of its Managing Director. The Tribunal found the reasons to be reasonable and bona fide, condoning the delay and admitting the appeal.Tribunal's Findings:The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided all necessary particulars and explanations for the transactions, including the purchase of stock-in-trade and corresponding sundry creditors. The Tribunal found that the AO had misunderstood the accounting principles and that the assessee's explanation was bona fide and not false. The Tribunal held that merely accepting the addition without challenging it does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c).Conclusion:The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had provided a reasonable explanation for the entries and that there was no effect on the profit or loss for the assessment year. The order was pronounced on 3rd September 2021 at Chennai.