Income Tax

Penalty 271(1)(c) deleted on debatable issue of revenue or capital receipt of the freight subsidy

Penalty 271(1)(c) deleted on debatable issue of revenue or capital receipt of the freight subsidy not accounted for on mercantile basis.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2442 (2018) 07 ITAT

The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that in the Profit & Loss Account, the assessee had claimed expenses under the head “Freight outward (net)”. The assessee was asked to file details of freight  subsidy received/receivable from government.

The assessee submitted that he had not received freight subsidy during the financial year relevant to assessment year under consideration and as such the amount of freight subsidy was not accounted for.

The Assessing Officer, however, observed that the assessee was maintaining his account on mercantile basis and that the amount of freight subsidy received by it should have been reflected in the Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account. He, therefore, worked out the total freight subsidy and disallowed and added back the same to the income of the assessee.

He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and thereby levied the impugned penalty.

The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the impugned penalty.

Before the Tribunal the assessee submitted that the impugned penalty had been levied on account of non setting off the amount receivable as freight subsidy as against the expenditure claimed.

He further submitted that the freight subsidy is given as an incentive by the Government of the State to units established in the economically backward and remote area of the State for the development of the area and for generation of employment. Whether the freight subsidy was a revenue receipt or capital receipt, was a debatable issue, hence, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not attracted.

The Tribunal observed that the issue relating to receipt of freight subsidy whether it was capital or revenue receipt in the case of the assessee, was a debatable issue. Even the assessee had not received freight subsidy till date.

The Tribunal opined that the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were attracted in this case.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

SC condoned delay of 972 days in filing appeal due to restructuring in Department

Supreme Court condoned delay of 972 days in filing appeal due to restructuring in Income Tax Department In a recent…

13 hours ago
  • Income Tax

No addition on mere valuation report when stamp duty valuation is available

Addition can not be made relying on the valuation report of property when the stamp duty valuation is also available…

17 hours ago
  • Income Tax

ITAT deleted penalty for making a wrong claim of deduction u/s 54F/54B

Wrong claim of deduction u/s 54F/54B was not a case of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars…

19 hours ago
  • GST

Value of taxable supply and rates notified Pan Masala / tobacco products

CBIC notifies GST rates and value of taxable supply for Biris, Pan Masala / tobacco products  Ministry of Finance(Department of…

24 hours ago
  • Excise/Custom

CBIC issues SOP for wearing Body Cam by Custom officers in Baggage Clearance

CBIC has issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) for wearing Body Cam by Custom officers responsible for Baggage Clearance According…

1 day ago
  • Companies Act

MCA amends rules regarding Directors KYC and updation

MCA amends rules regarding Directors KYC and updation MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRSNOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 31st December, 2025 G.S.R. 943(E).—In…

2 days ago