2010 (9) TMI 768 - AT - Income Tax

Imposition of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - appellant had surrendered the bad debts of Rs. 46, 76, 680 after being confronted by the AO - the amount of Rs. 84, 78, 057 debited in P&L a/c on account of loss on sale of assets - held that - It is true that mere submitting a claim which is incorrect in law would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars of the income of the assessee but it cannot be disputed that the claim made by the assessee needs to be bona fide. If the claim besides being incorrect in law is mala fide Expln. 1 to s. 271(1) would come into play and work to the disadvantage of the assessee. - none of the judgments cited by the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee is rendering any help to the assessee in the present case and the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Delhi rendered in the case of Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (2010 -TMI - 75987 - DELHI HIGH COURT) - Levy of penalty confirmed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.
2. Allegation of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
3. Addition of bad debts recovered in subsequent years.
4. Addition of loss on sale of assets.
5. Excessiveness of the penalty levied.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act:
The core issue revolves around the imposition of a penalty amounting to Rs. 37,40,165 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, which was sustained by the CIT(A). The penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds that the assessee had concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars.

2. Allegation of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars:
The assessee contested the AO's assertion that there was an intention to conceal true particulars of income. The appellant argued that neither inaccurate particulars were furnished nor any income was concealed. The authorities below held that the appellant had surrendered bad debts of Rs. 46,76,680 after confrontation by the AO, which the appellant rebutted as untenable.

3. Addition of bad debts recovered in subsequent years:
The AO noted that the assessee had debited Rs. 46,76,680 towards bad debts in the Profit & Loss account, which was recovered in the subsequent year. The assessee surrendered this amount for addition in the income of the current year. The AO added this amount to the income, but the assessee contended that the penalty was unjustified because the bad debt deduction is allowable in the year of write-off, and the recovered amount is taxable in the year of recovery. The Tribunal agreed that no penalty could be imposed on this addition, as it was not a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

4. Addition of loss on sale of assets:
The AO also added Rs. 84,78,057, debited by the assessee as a loss on the sale of assets, stating it should be treated as a capital loss and not debited to the Profit & Loss account. The assessee argued that this was an inadvertent mistake by the tax consultant and should not attract a penalty. However, the Tribunal found this claim unsatisfactory and referenced the Delhi High Court's judgment in Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd., which upheld the penalty in similar circumstances. The Tribunal emphasized that the claim must be bona fide and not mala fide, and the assessee's explanation was not found to be bona fide.

5. Excessiveness of the penalty levied:
The assessee also argued that the penalty levied was excessive. However, the Tribunal, after considering various judgments and the specifics of the case, upheld the penalty related to the loss on sale of assets, finding that the claim was not bona fide and the assessee had not accepted the AO's decision, continuing to appeal the matter.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the penalty related to the bad debts addition should be deleted, as it was not a case of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. However, the penalty related to the loss on sale of assets was upheld, following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd., as the claim was not bona fide. The appeal of the assessee was thus dismissed.