Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) deleted as mere disallowance doesn't constitute concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars

ITAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for disallowances under Section 40A(3) and loading/unloading expenses. The tribunal held that mere disallowance does not constitute concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee had disclosed all payment particulars in the tax audit report and held bona fide belief regarding Section 40A(3) exceptions. The loading/unloading expense disallowance was ad-hoc, made due to verification difficulties with cash payments to small workers, not based on bogus expense findings. The appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of loading and unloading expenses.
3. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 40A(3):
The penalty was levied on the assessee for making cash payments in excess of Rs. 20,000, violating Section 40A(3). The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee, engaged in the transportation business, made substantial cash payments to truck drivers, which were considered as rent. The AO disallowed these payments, leading to a penalty for concealment of income. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance to Rs. 65,20,741, excluding payments made on holidays and for road expenses. The ITAT upheld this decision.

2. Disallowance of Loading and Unloading Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 12,12,400 claimed for loading and unloading expenses, citing non-verifiability. The CIT(A) reduced this disallowance to Rs. 1,81,860, considering the volume of freight receipts. The ITAT upheld this reduced disallowance. The AO viewed this as an attempt to inflate expenses, leading to a penalty for concealment of income.

3. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The AO imposed a penalty of Rs. 22,78,213, which is 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) upheld this penalty, stating that the assessee had concealed income. The assessee argued that all payments were disclosed in the Tax Audit Report and were made due to business expediency, covered under exceptions in Rule 6DD. The assessee also contended that the disallowance of loading and unloading expenses was based on an estimation and not on actual concealment.

Judgment Analysis:

Disallowance under Section 40A(3):
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the mere disallowance of expenses under Section 40A(3) does not warrant a penalty for concealing or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It was noted that all particulars were disclosed in the Tax Audit Report, and the assessee had a bona fide belief that these payments, made under business exigencies, fell under exceptions in Rule 6DD. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that if an assessee discloses all particulars and has a bona fide belief, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not warranted.

Disallowance of Loading and Unloading Expenses:
The Tribunal found that the disallowance was an ad-hoc estimation due to non-verifiability, not based on any finding of bogus claims. The expenses were paid to small workers in cash, making verification difficult. The Tribunal held that such ad-hoc disallowances do not constitute concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and do not attract penalty. This view was supported by multiple judicial precedents cited by the assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty of Rs. 22,78,213, holding that the levy of penalty on both disallowances was not sustainable. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

Order Pronouncement:
The order was pronounced in the open Court on 15/07/2024 at Ahmedabad.

---