2025 (2) TMI 158 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue's appeal dismissed as assessee proved reasonable cause under Section 273B for mine reclamation expense claims

The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the revenue's appeal challenging the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee had claimed provisions for mine ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee had made patently untenable claim in respect of Provisions for Mine Reclamation Expenses which could not have been allowed as a deduction under the mercantile system of accounting followed by the Assessee - HELD THAT:- AO had failed to appreciate that the amount included Mine Reclamation Expenses actually incurred during the relevant previous year. Further, there was no discussion on the explanation furnished by the Assessee. Similarly, while levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) AO has concluded that the Assessee had failed to offer any explanation. We find that the aforesaid finding returned by the AO is factually incorrect. In our view, the Assessee had disclosed all the primary facts. Further, even if it is assumed that the Assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income, we are of the view that the Assessee had discharged the burden cast u/s 273B of the Act to prove that the Assessee had reasonable cause for the same. Assessee was of the bonafide belief that the liability to incur expenses in terms of Rule 34 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 was an ascertained liability and provision created to meet the same was allowable as deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. We find that explanation furnished by the Assessee is also supported by documents filed during the original assessment proceedings. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) holding that no penalty could have been levied in the facts and circumstances of the present case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Defective notice u/s 274 - On a co-joint reading of Paragraph 11.13 and 13 of the Penalty Order it becomes clear that the Assessing Officer has finally levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act (read with Explanation 1 thereto) for concealment of the particulars of income whereas the charge as per the Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act and Notice issued under Section 274 of the Act was that the Assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, on this count also penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not sustainable. Revenue appeal dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment are:1. Whether the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the penalty notice was defective and the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars of income.2. Whether the assessee was aware of the default regarding furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and whether adequate opportunity was provided to the assessee to defend against the penalty.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Deletion of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c)Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with the imposition of penalties for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty is contingent on the taxpayer's conduct and the accuracy of the information provided in their tax filings.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty based on the alleged defectiveness of the penalty notice and the merits of the case. The Tribunal noted that the penalty notice must specify the exact charge-either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found that the penalty notice and the assessment order were inconsistent, as the notice mentioned furnishing inaccurate particulars, while the penalty order concluded concealment of income.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided comprehensive details and justification for the deduction claimed for Mine Reclamation Expenses, including statutory requirements under the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts and relied on legal precedents to support its claim.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principles of Section 271(1)(c) and determined that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the deduction claimed, supported by statutory obligations and legal precedents. The Tribunal also emphasized that the penalty notice's defectiveness rendered the penalty unsustainable.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the assessee was aware of the inaccuracies and had been given ample opportunity to defend against the penalty. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee's explanations and disclosures were consistent with the statutory framework and that the penalty notice's defectiveness was a significant procedural flaw.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty, as the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars and the penalty notice was defective.2. Awareness of Default and Opportunity to DefendRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principles of natural justice require that taxpayers be given adequate opportunity to present their case before penalties are imposed.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal considered whether the assessee was aware of the alleged default and whether sufficient opportunity was provided to defend against the penalty. The Tribunal found that the assessee had been transparent in its disclosures and provided detailed explanations during the assessment proceedings.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted detailed documentation and explanations for the Mine Reclamation Expenses, which were consistent with statutory obligations and legal precedents.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal determined that the assessee had acted in good faith and with reasonable cause, as evidenced by the detailed disclosures and reliance on statutory obligations. The Tribunal found no evidence of concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's contention that the assessee was aware of the inaccuracies was not supported by the evidence, as the assessee had provided comprehensive disclosures and explanations.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars, and the penalty was not justified.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore Principles Established: The Tribunal reaffirmed the necessity for penalty notices to specify the exact charge and emphasized the importance of transparency and good faith in tax filings. The Tribunal also highlighted the need for adequate procedural safeguards before imposing penalties.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty, finding that the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars and that the penalty notice was defective. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the penalty was not sustainable under the circumstances.