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 >>

----------- Similar Posts: -----------
Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

CPC order u/s 143(1) is appealable and hence no merger with order u/s 143(3) – ITAT

CPC order u/s 143(1) is appealable and hence the doctrine of merger with order u/s 143(3) do not arise -…

11 hours ago
  • GST

Under GST Act, there is no specific provision to disclose route of transportation of goods

Under GST Act, there is no specific provision which bounds selling dealer to disclose route to be taken during transportation…

14 hours ago
  • Companies Act

Restrictions on use of words “Nidhi Limited”-The Nidhi (Amendment) Rules, 2024

Restrictions on use of words Nidhi Limited unless declared as such under section 406(1). Nidhi (Amendment) Rules 2024 MINISTRY OF…

15 hours ago
  • Companies Act

MCA prescribes period & fee for updating directors personal mobile number & email

MCA prescribes period and fee for updating of Directors personal mobile number or email address by e-form DIR-3 KYC  MINISTRY…

15 hours ago
  • GST

GST e-invoice-1 and e-invoice-2 Portals to be launched from 18.07.2024

Integrated Services from NIC-IRP e-invoice-1 and e-invoice-2 Portals GSTN has informed that NIC is releasing the integrated services from e-invoice-1…

22 hours ago
  • Companies Act

The Companies (Significant Beneficial Owners) Amendment Rules, 2024

The Companies (Significant Beneficial Owners) Amendment Rules, 2024. MCA amends Form No. BEN-2 Return to the Registrar under section 90…

22 hours ago