1993 (1) TMI 112 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal overturns penalty order for IT Act violation, assessee's shares considered stock-in-trade

MAHARAJA PRITHVIRAJ. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the penalty order under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment year 1980-81. It found that the assessee's ... - Issues:- Appeal against penalty order under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for asst. yr. 1980-81.- Treatment of shares as stock-in-trade vs. investment.- Disallowance of interest claimed under s. 80V.- Confirmation of penalty by CIT(A) based on alleged mala fide intention to avoid tax liability.- Assessment of whether the assessee concealed income particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars.- Application of Explanation 1 and the omission of 'bona fide' in determining penalty.Analysis:The case involves an appeal against a penalty order under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment year 1980-81. The assessee held shares of a company and declared a profit on their sale. The Income Tax Officer treated the transaction as capital gains instead of trading, leading to additions in the assessment. The penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer for alleged evasion of tax, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the shares were held as stock-in-trade based on previous transactions and that the claim was bona fide, hence no penalty should be imposed.The key issue was whether the assessee concealed income particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and found that the sale and purchase of shares were not isolated transactions, indicating a business activity. The Tribunal referred to precedents to establish that even if a transaction is solitary, it can still be considered part of a business. The Department failed to prove that the assessee's explanation was false, a crucial element for penalty under s. 271(1)(c). The Tribunal concluded that there was no concealment of income particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, as the assessee's claims were bona fide and disclosed in the return.Regarding the application of Explanation 1 and the omission of 'bona fide,' the Tribunal noted that the penalty was imposed after the amendment introducing the 'bona fide' requirement. Therefore, the amended provision should apply, and since the assessee's claim was found to be bona fide, no penalty could be levied. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and deleted the penalty imposed, ruling in favor of the assessee.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the assessee's actions were in good faith, and there was no evidence of concealing income particulars or providing inaccurate information. The decision highlighted the importance of establishing mala fide intent and false explanations to impose penalties under the IT Act.