Excel for
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Jaipur, in a recent judgment has held that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act, 1961 for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for non-filing of return of income.
Case Law Details:
Brief facts of the Case:
Contention of the assessee: Important paragraphs from ITAT Judgment: i. As the record reveals assesse had filed all the relevant documents, information and events before ld. AO during the course of filing of return for AY 2006-07, assessment proceedings and in AY 2007-08 also. When the order of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court approving the scheme of demerger was passed, the same was also duly and promptly filed by the assesse with ld. AO. These facts have not at all been disputed by the department in any manner. ii. The allegation of concealment or inaccurate particulars has not been established by the ld. A.O. on discovery of any new fact, information or inquiry. The entire adverse inference is drawn on nothing but asseessee’s own record and Hon’ble High Court approval for demerger schemes after the income tax department is heard. In our considered view there exists no scope to hold that assesssee has concealed any fact or furnished inaccurate particulars in the return of income dtd. 27-11-2006 filed prior to approval of demerger scheme by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. So also in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 as it is not disputed that assessee did not claim any set off of loss. Thus we see no justification in alleging that assessee has concealed any fact or furnished inaccurate particulars in any returns of income. iii. A multitude of undisputed facts mentioned above clearly demonstrate that there were no effort much less intention to conceal any particulars or file any inaccurate particular of income by assessee testing it on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, human conduct, surrounding circumstances or reasonable logic. iv. There is no loss to revenue as assessee has paid all the due taxes. It has not taken any advantage as it has not claimed any set off of such losses in any manner in the subsequent year. There being repetitive and full disclosure of facts and record; there being no loss to revenue as the loss is not set off by the assesse and merely because revised return is not filed by the asssessee, it is desirable the all the surrounding circumstances, human conduct and assessee’s explanation are to be considered in harmonious manner. Considering all the aspect we are not in agreement with authorities below that assessee concealed or filed inaccurate particulars of income so as to be liable for impugned penalty. v. Having filed all the relevant details on several occasions whose veracity is not at all challenged by the revenue, the sole issue remains whether the impugned concealment penalty is legally or factually leviable for not filing of a revised return which was undertaken by assesse. In our considered view penalty provision for not filing a return are different i.e. sec 271(1)(a) and not 271(1)(c). Besides in original return or notice u/s 148 assesssee did not conceal any income or furnished inaccurate particulars. By the time or original return merger scheme was not approved and assesse offered income in return in response to notice u/s 148. It is trite law that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed by picking up one default, the levy is to be considered after carefully considering the entirety of facts, record, assessee’s submissions, judicial precedents and applying proper discretion. Any penalty imposed without proper care and in an arbitrary manner has a propensity to become untenable. vi. There is no provision in the IT Act for levying concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) for non-filing of a return. The relevant provision is sec. 271(1)(a), which is neither initiated nor attracted. Thus the penalty has been imposed for not filing a return and unfounded allegation that assessee filed inaccurate particulars in return of income dtd. 27-11-06 is unsustainable. vii Assessee having offered a satisfactory explanation which remains largely uncontroverted, it becomes clear that it discharged its primary onus to furnish an explanation which is corroborated by undisputed facts and substantiated by record about its truthfulness. In our considered view this is not a fit case for imposition of penalty. viii. Our view is fortified by Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments in the case of Reliance Petro Products holding that when the relevant information is submitted in the return of income, it is to be held that assesse has the assesse has discharged its onus of offering a satisfactory explanation. ix. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steels (supra) has held that penalty should not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Besides technical or venial breach of law can not be visited with stringent penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). With all the record in possession of department, inadvertent non filing of revised return cannot constitute a decisive factor for imposition of penalty at the cost of host of other facts available on record demonstrating that assessee filed all the relevant details times and again suo motu. A technical default for which provisions of sec. 271(1)(a) may be attracted cannot be made a basis for penalty u/s 271(1)(c). x. In consideration of above facts and circumstances of the case, relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments in the cases of Reliance Petro Products, Price Water House, Hindustan steels and host of other judgments on other relevant issues, we hold that, this is not a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The same is deleted. Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
|