2025 (5) TMI 699 - AT - Income Tax

No penalty under section 271(1)(c) when returned income matches assessed income after notice under section 148

Monish Ranjan Dasgupta Versus ITO, Ward-61 (3), Kolkata

The ITAT Kolkata held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not imposable where the returned income in response to notice under section 148 matched the ... Penalty u/s. 271(1) - returned income in the return filed in response to the notice under section 148 - surrender value of an annuity plan received by the assessee is taxable u/s 80CCC(2) of the Act when no deduction was claimed u/s 80CCC(1) in the years of investment - HELD THAT:- Since the claim that no such deduction was claimed or allowed in the earlier years of investment has been countered by the DR nor any counter evidence could be either submitted or any counter argument could be advanced by the Ld. DR, therefore, as per the provisions of section 80CCC(2) the assessee was not liable to be assessed in the year in which the withdrawal was made except for the income arising on account of accrued interest or bonus, which amount had been disclosed in the return filed in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. After the appeal order, the income shown in the return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 was the assessed income of the assessee. It is to be seen whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is liable to be imposed when the returned income in the return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act and the assessed income is the same. Similar issue arose in the case of Amitabha Sanyal Income Tax Officer, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata [2024 (12) TMI 493 - ITAT KOLKATA] it has been held that no penalty is imposable if the returned income and the assessed income are the same. Since no proper show cause notice appears to have been issued for either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as the notice issued does not contain any such allegation therefore, the penalty sustained being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded is liable to be deleted. Since the assessee had not claimed any deduction in the year of investment and had shown the difference between the maturity amount and the total amount invested in the return filed for AY 2016-147 in response to the notice issued u/s 148 and the addition made for the amount invested in the earlier three years has been deleted by the CIT(A) for the reason that no such deduction was claimed, and even in the show cause notice issued for imposition of penalty no details of the default or the details of the proposed penalty to be imposed are mentioned, therefore, on the principles of natural justice itself, the entire penalty order is vitiated - Decided in favour of asssessee. The core legal questions considered in this appeal pertain to the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. Specifically, the issues are:1. Whether the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars is justified when the returned income and assessed income are the same.2. Whether the surrender value of an annuity plan received by the assessee is taxable under section 80CCC(2) of the Act when no deduction was claimed under section 80CCC(1) in the years of investment.3. Whether the show cause notice issued for penalty was valid and complied with the principles of natural justice, particularly regarding specification of the default or concealment alleged.4. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is liable to be condoned.Issue 1: Justification for Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when Returned Income Equals Assessed IncomeThe legal framework governing penalty under section 271(1)(c) requires that the Assessing Officer (AO) be satisfied that the assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. This satisfaction must be recorded during the assessment proceedings. The Supreme Court in Varkey Chacko v. CIT held that penalty can only be imposed when such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars is established.The Tribunal noted that the returned income filed by the assessee in response to the notice under section 148 was accepted as assessed income after the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. There was no finding by the AO or CIT(A) that the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal referred to precedents including Meeta Gutgutia vs. ACIT and the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. S.A.S. Pharmaceuticals, which emphasize that penalty under section 271(1)(c) can only be levied if concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars is established with reference to the return filed.The Tribunal also cited the decision in Armoury International vs. Asst. CIT where it was held that if the assessed income and returned income are the same, penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) fail.Applying these principles, since the returned income and assessed income were the same and no concealment was found, the Tribunal concluded that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not imposable.Issue 2: Taxability of Surrender Value under Section 80CCC(2) when No Deduction Claimed under Section 80CCC(1)Section 80CCC(1) allows deduction for premiums paid for annuity plans, subject to conditions. Section 80CCC(2) provides that any amount received on surrender of such annuity plans, for which deduction was allowed under subsection (1), is taxable as income in the year of receipt.The AO had added the entire surrender value of Rs. 23,00,188 to the income, treating it as income from other sources. The assessee contended that no deduction under section 80CCC(1) was claimed in the years of investment (AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13), and therefore, the surrender value should not be taxable under section 80CCC(2).The CIT(A) after examining the facts held that since no deduction was claimed or allowed under section 80CCC(1) in the earlier years, the provisions of section 80CCC(2) could not be invoked to tax the surrender value in AY 2016-17. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 23,00,188 and allowed income of Rs. 8,00,188 representing accrued interest or bonus, which was disclosed in the return filed in response to the section 148 notice.The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the AO and the Department could not produce evidence to counter the assessee's claim that no deduction was claimed earlier. Thus, the surrender value was not taxable in AY 2016-17 under section 80CCC(2).Issue 3: Validity of the Show Cause Notice for Penalty and Compliance with Principles of Natural JusticeThe show cause notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) did not specify the nature of default, concealment, or furnishing of inaccurate particulars alleged against the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the notice was vague and failed to identify the particulars of income concealed or inaccurately furnished.In light of the absence of any specific allegation or default mentioned in the notice, the Tribunal held that the penalty order was vitiated on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. The assessee was not given an opportunity to effectively respond to any specific charge of concealment or inaccuracy.Issue 4: Condonation of Delay in Filing AppealThe appeal was filed 65 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The assessee submitted that being a non-resident with no regular place of residence in India, and due to late receipt of the impugned order through the portal, the delay was unintentional and without malafide intent.The Tribunal considered these reasons as reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay and accordingly condoned the delay, admitting the appeal for adjudication on merits.Application of Law to Facts and Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Tribunal carefully analyzed the statutory provisions of sections 80CCC(1) and (2) and the relevant case law on penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c). The assessee's contention that no deduction was claimed under section 80CCC(1) was accepted due to lack of contrary evidence from the Department.The Department relied on a recent decision holding that once an addition is made and accepted, penalty is justified. However, the Tribunal distinguished the present case on the basis that the returned income was accepted as assessed income and no concealment was found. The Tribunal also emphasized the necessity of a clear finding of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars before imposing penalty.Regarding the penalty notice, the Tribunal found the absence of specific allegations fatal to the validity of the penalty proceedings.Significant Holdings'A penalty for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income can be imposed only when the assessing authority is satisfied that there has been such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.''Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is merit in appellant's ground that the investments made by him cannot be brought to tax for the year under consideration as no deduction was claimed under section 80CCC(1) of the Act.''Since no proper show cause notice appears to have been issued for either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as the notice issued does not contain any such allegation, the penalty order is vitiated on principles of natural justice.''If the compensation amount is excluded as capital receipt, there remains no difference between the income returned and assessed, hence no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is imposable.''The delay in filing the appeal is condoned as the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the appeal within the statutory time limit.'The Tribunal's final determination was to condone the delay in filing the appeal, uphold the deletion of the addition of the surrender value under section 80CCC(2), and set aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appeal was allowed accordingly.