2025 (7) TMI 1047 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) deleted as bona fide legal claims don't constitute inaccurate particulars

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 6 (1) (1), Bengaluru Versus Sri Santosh Shivaji Lad

ITAT Bangalore upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by AO. The AO had treated assessee's advances as capital investments rather than ... Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - AO treated the advances as an investment in the hands of the assessee and capital in nature rather than a trade advance, making them ineligible to be claimed as a business loss - AO found that the assessee had not charged any interest on these advances in any financial year, indicating that the assessee did not comply with the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act, and thus, could not be claimed as bad debts. HELD THAT:- As decided in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] has clearly held that merely making a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. There must be some element of concealment or deliberate misstatement. In this case, the assessee disclosed all relevant facts regarding the advances given to the two companies, M/s Lad’s Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Connect Films Media Pvt. Ltd., which were later written off due to their failure to generate business. The assessee disclosed these transactions openly in his profit and loss account. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee concealed the advances or gave any false information about them. The dispute is only regarding the allowability of the write-off as a business expenditure, which has been disallowed as a capital loss. This is a legal interpretation of the nature of the transaction and not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Similarly, in respect of the interest income and expenditure under section 57 of the Act, the assessee disclosed the interest earned and claimed the related expenditure. While the AO disallowed part of the interest expenditure for want of proper linkage, it is evident that the assessee made a full disclosure of both income and expenditure. There is no finding of concealment or deliberate misstatement of facts by the assessee. As in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has held that mere disallowance of a claim, without establishing a deliberate act of concealment or furnishing of false particulars, does not automatically lead to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Additionally in CIT v. Madhushree Gupta [2013 (3) TMI 75 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has observed that mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case, the assessee’s claims, though ultimately disallowed, were based on a bona fide understanding of the facts and applicable law. The explanations offered by the assessee have neither been proved to be false nor any mala-fide intentions has been established by the AO. Revenue has not demonstrated that the assessee intended to mislead or suppress material facts. We hold that this is a case where two views are possible on the allowability of the claims made by the assessee. The mere rejection of the assessee's claim does not mean that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, we hold that the learned CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act - Assessee appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issue considered in this appeal is whether the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, was justified. Specifically, the questions considered include:Whether the claim of 'Investment in Companies written off' by the assessee, which was disallowed as a capital loss rather than a business loss, amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c).Whether the claim of interest expenditure under section 57 of the Act, partly disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) for lack of substantiation, constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.Whether the assessee's failure to provide timely explanation during penalty proceedings justifies imposition of penalty.Whether the penalty order was passed within the limitation period prescribed under section 275 of the Act.Whether the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts regarding penalty under section 271(1)(c) apply to the facts of this case.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Legality of penalty for claim of 'Investment in Companies written off'Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 271(1)(c) penalizes furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 has held that merely making a claim which is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty is attracted only if there is concealment or deliberate misstatement. Other relevant precedents include CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn.), CIT v. Madhushree Gupta [2013] 33 taxmann.com 286, and CIT v. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 191 Taxman 179 (Delhi).Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the assessee had disclosed the advances given to the two companies, which were later written off due to their inability to repay. These transactions were openly reflected in the profit and loss account. The AO, CIT(A), and ITAT had disallowed the claim on the ground that the advances were capital in nature and not business losses. However, the penalty proceedings are distinct and require proof of malafide intention or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, which was absent.Key evidence and findings: The assessee produced letters from the companies acknowledging inability to repay and writing back the amounts as income. The assessee disclosed these transactions fully in the return and accounts. No evidence was brought on record by the AO or Revenue to prove concealment or falsity.Application of law to facts: Since the claim was made bona fide and fully disclosed, and the disallowance was a matter of legal interpretation, the Court held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified.Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the claim was incorrect and amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Court rejected this, relying on the principle that incorrect claims in law do not attract penalty absent concealment or malafide intent.Conclusions: The penalty for the disallowed claim of investment written off was held unsustainable.Issue 2: Legality of penalty for disallowance of interest expenditure under section 57Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 57 allows deduction of expenditure incurred to earn income under the head 'Income from Other Sources.' The AO disallowed part of the interest expenditure for lack of substantiation. Judicial precedents including CIT v. Madhushree Gupta and CIT v. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. were considered.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The assessee disclosed both interest income and expenditure. The AO disallowed part of the expenditure based on estimation and lack of precise linkage. The Court noted that penalty cannot be imposed on additions or disallowances made on estimate basis or bona fide differences of opinion.Key evidence and findings: The assessee explained that borrowed funds were invested in fixed deposits earning interest. The AO found the explanation unsatisfactory but did not prove malafide or concealment. The disallowance was partly on estimated figures.Application of law to facts: Since the assessee disclosed all relevant facts and the disallowance was based on estimation, no inaccurate particulars were furnished.Treatment of competing arguments: Revenue argued that failure to substantiate interest expenditure amounted to inaccurate particulars. The Court disagreed, emphasizing the absence of concealment or deliberate misstatement.Conclusions: Penalty for disallowance of interest expenditure was not justified.Issue 3: Adequacy of opportunity to be heard and procedural complianceRelevant legal framework: Principles of natural justice require reasonable opportunity to be heard before imposing penalty. Section 274 notice must provide adequate time.Court's reasoning: The AO issued notice on April 25, 2023, requiring appearance the very next day. The assessee requested extension citing election duties but did not provide explanation. Penalty was passed on April 28, 2023, before the extended date. The CIT(A) found this procedure inadequate and held penalty order invalid on grounds of lack of proper opportunity.Application of law to facts: The Court agreed with CIT(A) that the assessee was not afforded reasonable opportunity, which is a mandatory requirement.Conclusion: Penalty order was invalid due to procedural lapses.Issue 4: Limitation for passing penalty order under section 275Relevant legal framework: Section 275 prescribes that penalty orders must be passed within six months from the end of the month in which the appellate order is received by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.Court's reasoning: The ITAT order was passed on June 6, 2022, but received by PCIT office on October 17, 2022. The penalty order was passed on April 28, 2023, within six months from October 2022. The assessee contended otherwise.Application of law to facts: The Court held that the penalty order was within limitation period.Conclusion: Limitation objection was rejected.Issue 5: Application of judicial precedents on penalty under section 271(1)(c)Relevant precedents: The Court extensively relied on CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, CIT v. Madhushree Gupta, CIT v. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd., and others.Court's interpretation: These precedents establish that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic upon disallowance of claims. The assessee's bona fide explanation, full disclosure, and absence of malafide intent are key to avoiding penalty.Application to facts: The Court found the assessee's explanation bona fide, no concealment or inaccurate particulars were furnished, and the disallowances were matters of legal interpretation or estimation.Conclusion: The penalty levied was not sustainable in law.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars.''So long as the assessee has not concealed any material fact or the factual information given by him has not been found to be incorrect, he will not be liable to imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, even if the claim made by him is unsustainable in law, provided that he either substantiates the explanation offered by him or the explanation, even if not substantiated, is found to be bona fide.''The imposition of penalty is not automatic... Only when no explanation is offered or the explanation offered is found to be false or when the assessee fails to prove that the explanation offered is not bona fide, an order imposing penalty can be passed.''The penalty provisions are distinct from the assessment proceedings. While the assessment involves determining the correct income, penalty proceedings require establishing the assessee's intent to conceal or furnish inaccurate particulars, which is absent in this case.''In the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable and deserves to be deleted.'