Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) deleted for bona fide mistake and improper penalty notice issuance

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted where the assessee inadvertently claimed deduction under section 54F and rectified the mistake by filing a revised computation during assessment proceedings. The ITAT held that the error was bona fide and did not warrant penalty. Further, penalty levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was unsustainable as penalty proceedings were initiated only for concealment of income, a distinct offense requiring separate satisfaction and notice. Since the AO issued notice and levied penalty on a different limb than that for which proceedings were initiated, the penalty was liable to be deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed accordingly.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when made inadvertently and subsequently withdrawn by the assessee during assessment proceedings, constitutes furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.Whether the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is justified in the absence of mens rea or deliberate concealment of income by the assessee.Whether a revised computation of income filed during assessment proceedings can be accepted in lieu of a revised return when the original return was belated and cannot be revised.Whether penalty proceedings initiated for concealment of income can be sustained if the penalty is ultimately levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without proper satisfaction or initiation on that limb.Whether habitual incorrect claims of deduction under section 54F in previous assessment years can be considered to negate the bonafide nature of the claim in the current year.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

On the issue of inadvertent claim of deduction under section 54F, the court held that "merely making of the claim in the Return of Income which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the Assessee" and that the claim was rectified by the assessee through filing a revised computation during assessment proceedings.The court ruled that "a guilty mind is necessary for the purpose of levy of penalty" under section 271(1)(c), and in the absence of deliberate attempt to evade tax or conceal income, penalty is not attracted.The court accepted that since the original return was belated, the assessee was unable to file a revised return, and therefore filing a revised computation of income during assessment proceedings was a proper rectification of the inadvertent error.Regarding penalty proceedings, the court held that "concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are two separate connotations" and that penalty levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars when proceedings were initiated only for concealment is "not sustainable and liable to be deleted."The court rejected the Revenue's contention that habitual incorrect claims in previous years negate bonafide nature of the claim in the instant year, noting that the penalty for the previous year had not attained finality and that an admission is "an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive."

RATIONALE:

The court applied the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which penalizes concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, emphasizing the requirement of mens rea or deliberate concealment for penalty imposition.Judicial precedents relied upon include the Hon'ble Supreme Court's rulings in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd., which clarified that mere disallowance of a claim does not attract penalty unless deliberate concealment is proved, and MAC Data Ltd., which explained the burden of proof and presumption under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c).The court also referred to decisions of various Tribunals and High Courts, including Nuchem Ltd. v. DCIT and Somani Evergree Knits Ltd., which held that bona fide mistakes rectified during assessment proceedings do not warrant penalty.The distinction between concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars was underscored, following the jurisdictional High Court's interpretation and Supreme Court precedents, holding that penalty must be levied only on the basis of the limb for which satisfaction was recorded and proceedings initiated.The court noted the absence of compliance failures or deliberate concealment by the assessee, given the timely withdrawal of the incorrect claim upon notice and the filing of revised computation, which demonstrated bonafide intent.A doctrinal emphasis was placed on the principle that penalty is a quasi-criminal proceeding and should not be imposed unless there is conscious or dishonest conduct or willful negligence, consistent with the decision in Hindustan Steels Ltd. vs. State of Orissa.

---