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

Object of assessment proceedings is not to find empirically correct solution on every fact issue – HC

It can never be the object of assessment proceedings to find an empirically, absolutely correct solution on every fact issue…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

Penalty u/s 270A deleted as assessee filed revised computation during scrutiny

Penalty u/s 270A deleted as assesse filed revised computation during scrutiny correcting the mistake which was noticed only after the…

6 days ago
  • Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271B for unfilled column 40 in Tax Audit Report Form 3CD deleted by ITAT

Penalty u/s 271B for unfilled column 40 in Form 3CD related to details regarding turnover, gross profit etc. for previous…

1 week ago
  • Income Tax

Merely ex-parte rectifying computation without amending assessment order not make it nullity- ITAT

Merely rectifying computation without amending assessment order without notice to assessee does not nullify the entire assessment  - ITAT In…

2 weeks ago
  • Income Tax

Once assessee discharges primary onus, it shifts to AO to bring evidence to contrary – ITAT

Once assessee discharges primary onus of providing basic documents in support of the identity, genuineness and the creditworthiness it shifts…

2 weeks ago
  • Income Tax

Cost Inflation Index for FY/Tax Year 2026-27 notified by CBDT. See Up-to-date Table of CII

CBDT has notified Cost Inflation Index for Financial Year / Tax Year 2026-27 CBDT has notified "384" as Cost Inflation…

2 weeks ago