Facts of the Case
The present appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2014–15,
wherein the Revenue challenged the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal deleting penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961.
The Assessing Officer had levied a penalty of ₹14.31 crores on
account of disallowance made under Section 43B of the Act.
The assessee company had suffered heavy losses due to floods
in Himachal Pradesh and underwent Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR).
Consequently:
- Working
capital loans were converted into Working Capital Term Loan (WCTL)
- Accrued
interest was converted into Funded Interest Term Loan (FITL)
The assessee initially filed its Return of Income (ROI), which
was later revised based on a revised tax audit report.
- Original
disallowance under Section 43B: ₹6.08 crores
- Revised
disallowance: ₹48.18 crores
The revision was carried out suo motu by the assessee before any specific query was raised by the Assessing Officer.
Issues Involved
- Whether
penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed when disallowance under
Section 43B is enhanced voluntarily by the assessee.
- Whether
such voluntary disclosure can still be treated as concealment or
furnishing inaccurate particulars.
- Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty.
Petitioner’s (Revenue’s) Arguments
- The
Revenue contended that the disallowance was not truly voluntary, but was
triggered due to notices issued under Sections 143(2) and 142(1).
- It
argued that the Tribunal erred in deleting the penalty despite clear
concealment.
- Reliance
was placed on judicial precedents including:
- Gangotri
Textiles Ltd. v. DCIT
- CIT
v. Gujarat Cypromet Ltd.
- MAK
Data (P) Ltd. v. CIT
- The Revenue asserted that mere voluntary disclosure does not absolve penalty liability.
Respondent’s (Assessee’s) Arguments
- The
assessee contended that the enhancement of disallowance was done suo motu
through a revised tax audit report.
- It
emphasized that:
- The
revision occurred before any specific query regarding Section 43B was
raised by the AO.
- The
action was bona fide and voluntary.
- The
assessee further relied on earlier judicial precedents which supported its
position at the relevant time, including:
- CIT
v. Gujarat Cypromet Ltd. (Gujarat HC)
- CIT
v. Bhagwati Auto Gas Ltd.
- It was argued that the conduct did not amount to concealment.
Court Findings / Order
The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order and held:
- The enhancement
of disallowance under Section 43B was voluntary.
- The
revised return was filed prior to any specific query by the Assessing
Officer.
- At
the relevant time, judicial precedents existed in favour of the assessee,
indicating bona fide conduct.
- The
judgments relied upon by the Revenue were factually distinguishable.
Accordingly:
No substantial question of law arose
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly deleted
Revenue’s appeal was dismissed
Important Clarification
- Voluntary
disclosure before detection by the Assessing Officer can negate penalty
under Section 271(1)(c).
- Bona
fide reliance on prevailing judicial precedents is a relevant factor in
penalty proceedings.
- Each case must be examined based on timing and intent behind disclosure.
Sections Involved
- Section
271(1)(c), Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penalty for concealment of income
- Section
43B, Income Tax Act, 1961 – Certain deductions on actual payment basis
- Section
142(1) – Inquiry before assessment
- Section 143(2) – Scrutiny notice
Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/RAS18072023ITA9132019_193525.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment