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

CBDT issues 23 FAQs on transition provisions under Section 536 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 

CBDT has issued 23 FAQs on transition provisions under Section 536 of the Income-tax Act, 2025  CBDT has issued 23…

12 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Respondent assessee, under Rule 27 can’t raise a ground which is adverse to appellant Revenue

Respondent assesse, under Rule 27 not entitled to raise a ground which would work adversely to the appellant Revenue -…

1 day ago
  • huf

When testator was illiterate, burden was on propounder of Will to satisfy judicial conscience of Court

If judicial conscience of a final court of fact is not satisfied about the valid execution of the Will, it…

2 days ago
  • Insurance

Which ITRS are relevant for assessing income of deceased person under MV Act 1988

SC laid downs guidelines for use of ITRS for assessing annual income of deceased person under Motor Vehicles Act 1988…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

CBDT condones delay in filing Form No. 10AB

CBDT condones delay in filing Form No. 10AB furnished electronically between 01.10.2025 to 31.03.2026. CBDT has condoned the delay in…

6 days ago
  • bankruptcy

SC express concern over AI generated judgments/paragraphs escaping scrutiny by NCLT/NCLAT

Supreme Court expresses serious concerns over AI generated judgments/paragraphs relied upon by the NCLT/NCLAT In a recent judgment, the Hon'ble…

6 days ago