Section 271(1)(c) penalty deleted for disallowance under 40(a)(ia) as mere non-compliance differs from furnishing inaccurate particulars

ITAT Mumbai deleted penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of interest expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) and delayed payment of professional tax/TDS. The tribunal held that mere disallowance of expenditure due to non-compliance with statutory requirements does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the genuineness of expenditure was never doubted and no particulars were found incorrect, penalty could not be imposed. The tribunal distinguished between claims not sustainable in law versus furnishing inaccurate particulars, ruling that unsuccessful legal claims alone cannot attract penalty provisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of interest expenditure due to non-deposit of TDS.
3. Disallowance of interest on delayed payment of professional tax and TDS.
4. Jurisdictional validity of the penalty proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Penalty Imposed under Section 271(1)(c):

The core issue was whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars was justified. The assessee contended that the penalty was imposed without specifying the exact nature of the default, i.e., whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The tribunal noted that while the initial show cause notice did not specify the default, a subsequent notice did, and the assessee did not challenge its validity. Thus, the tribunal upheld the jurisdiction to levy the penalty but focused on whether the penalty was justified on merits.

2. Disallowance of Interest Expenditure Due to Non-Deposit of TDS:

The assessee had claimed an interest expenditure of Rs. 3,74,28,580/- which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under Section 40(a)(ia) due to non-deposit of TDS. The tribunal observed that the disallowance was a result of a procedural lapse (non-deposit of TDS) rather than any inaccuracy or falsity in the particulars of income. The tribunal relied on precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Reliance Petroproducts, to conclude that a mere disallowance due to non-compliance with TDS provisions does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified solely on this disallowance.

3. Disallowance of Interest on Delayed Payment of Professional Tax and TDS:

The A.O. disallowed interest on delayed payment of professional tax (Rs. 2,500/-) and TDS (Rs. 37,909/-), considering them inadmissible under Section 37(1). The tribunal acknowledged the disallowance but held that the mere disallowance of such claims does not automatically lead to a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The tribunal emphasized that the claims were not found to be false or inaccurate, and thus, penalty imposition was unwarranted.

4. Jurisdictional Validity of the Penalty Proceedings:

The tribunal addressed the procedural aspect of penalty imposition, noting the initial defect in the show cause notice. However, since a subsequent notice rectified this issue and was not contested, the tribunal found the jurisdictional challenge to be without merit. The tribunal dismissed the additional ground of appeal concerning jurisdictional validity.

Conclusion:

The tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and deleted the penalty of Rs. 1,21,56,814/- imposed by the A.O. under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with the tribunal emphasizing that procedural lapses and bona fide claims, even if disallowed, do not necessarily constitute grounds for penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

---