Company penalized for inflated expenses in revised return but penalty deleted for delayed welfare fund deposits

ITAT Raipur upheld penalty under Section 271(1)(c) against the assessee company for claiming inflated expenses in revised return that contradicted audited financial statements. The company failed to provide bonafide explanation for false expense claims, constituting concealment of income. However, penalty was deleted regarding delayed deposit of employee welfare fund contributions as this was legally permissible under prevailing SC precedent in Alom Extrusions Limited. ITAT also vacated penalty under Section 270A for the welfare fund issue, finding no under-reporting since the claim was supported by valid judicial pronouncements. The tribunal emphasized that wrong expense claims require revised returns, not mere correspondence with AO.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars/concealment of income.
2. Confirmation of penalty for disallowance under Section 36(1)(va).
3. Jurisdictional validity of penalty imposition under Section 270A.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of Penalty for Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars/Concealment of Income
The revenue challenged the deletion of the penalty amounting to Rs. 2,92,58,402/- imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars/concealment of income. The assessee company filed its return based on provisional financial statements, later revised due to discrepancies in the data. The AO made an addition of Rs. 8,84,92,885/- to the "book profit" due to these discrepancies and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).

The CIT(Appeals) vacated the penalty, observing that the discrepancies were due to bona fide mistakes and the data was already available with the AO in various forms. The CIT(A) relied on the Supreme Court judgment in CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts and other ITAT decisions, concluding that there was no malafide intention by the assessee.

The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A), noting that the assessee failed to provide a plausible explanation for the delay in filing the revised return and the subsequent correction of expenses. The Tribunal upheld the AO's penalty imposition, stating that the assessee's actions fell within the realm of "Explanation 1" r.w. "Explanation 4" of Section 271(1)(c), and the assessee's claim of a bona fide mistake was not credible.

Issue 2: Confirmation of Penalty for Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va)
The assessee contested the penalty of Rs. 16,20,646/- imposed for the disallowance of Rs. 49,01,692/- under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contributions to labor welfare funds. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT-1, which clarified the disallowance of delayed deposits.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim that the issue was debatable at the time of filing the return, supported by the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alom Extrusions Limited and other High Court decisions. The Tribunal vacated the penalty, recognizing the assessee's bona fide belief in the allowability of the claim.

Issue 3: Jurisdictional Validity of Penalty Imposition under Section 270A
For the assessment year 2017-18, the revenue challenged the deletion of a penalty of Rs. 2,17,52,866/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars/concealment of income. The assessee also contested the penalty of Rs. 55,39,257/- for disallowance under Section 36(1)(va).

The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to specify whether the penalty was for "underreporting" or "misreporting" of income in the SCNs issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 270A. The Tribunal, referencing various judicial pronouncements, held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction and quashed the penalty imposition.

Additionally, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had revised its gross receipts and "book profit" in the revised return, which was later assessed by the AO. The Tribunal concluded that no penalty under Section 270A was warranted, as the revised return accurately reflected the income.

Conclusion:
1. The Tribunal upheld the AO's penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for the addition of Rs. 8,84,92,885/- but vacated the penalty for disallowance under Section 36(1)(va).
2. The Tribunal quashed the penalty under Section 270A for the assessment year 2017-18 due to jurisdictional errors and accepted the revised return's accuracy.
3. The appeals and cross-objections were decided in favor of the assessee for the respective issues, with the Tribunal providing detailed reasoning for each decision.

---