Facts of the Case
The assessee filed its original return for AY 2007–08
declaring taxable income of ₹93,72,590, which was processed under Section
143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected for
scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) was issued.
A search and seizure operation under Section 132 was conducted
on 05.01.2009 in the Taneja Puri Group, leading to proceedings under Sections
132 and 153A. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed a fresh return claiming
additional expenditure amounting to ₹13.42 crores on an accrual basis,
including interest, brokerage, and other expenses.
The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses on the ground
that they were not claimed in the original return. The CIT(A) upheld the
disallowance. Thereafter, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were
initiated, and a penalty of ₹4.43 crores was imposed.
However, CIT(A) deleted the penalty. The ITAT upheld this deletion, leading to an appeal by the Revenue before the Delhi High Court.
Issues Involved
- Whether
penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed when the assessee makes a
fresh claim in a return filed under Section 153A.
- Whether
a change in accounting policy (aligned with AS-7) leading to a new claim
amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
- Whether mere disallowance of a claim automatically attracts penalty.
Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue)
- The
assessee made a dual claim of expenses in the return filed under
Section 153A.
- The
fresh claim was not permissible as it was not part of the original return.
- Reliance was placed on CIT vs Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2010) to argue that untenable claims attract penalty.
Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee)
- The
claim was made due to a change in accounting policy in line with
Accounting Standard-7 (AS-7).
- All
material facts were fully disclosed; there was no concealment or
misrepresentation.
- The
claim was bona fide and based on recognized accounting principles.
- Mere rejection of a claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
Court’s Findings / Order
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld
the deletion of penalty, holding:
- The assessee
had disclosed all material facts, and there was no concealment of
income.
- The
claim arose due to a change in accounting policy, which was
permissible under AS-7.
- The
claim was ultimately given up due to legal constraints (absence of
incriminating material in Section 153A proceedings).
- Mere
making of an unsustainable claim does not attract penalty under Section
271(1)(c).
The Court relied on the principle laid down in:
- CIT
vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158, SC)
- CIT
vs Thakur Prasad Sao & Sons Pvt. Ltd.
- CIT
vs Bhoj Raj & Co.
The Court also distinguished Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd.
on facts.
Final Order:
The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.
Important Clarification by Court
- Penalty
under Section 271(1)(c) requires concealment of income or furnishing of
inaccurate particulars.
- A bona
fide claim based on accounting changes, even if disallowed, does not
attract penalty.
- In
Section 153A proceedings, new claims without incriminating material may
fail, but failure does not automatically trigger penalty.
- Disclosure of primary facts is key to avoiding penalty liability.
Sections Involved
- Section
132 – Search and Seizure
- Section
153A – Assessment in case of search
- Section
143(1), 143(2), 143(3) – Assessment provisions
- Section
271(1)(c) – Penalty for concealment / inaccurate particulars
- Section 139 – Filing of return
Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2021:DHC:1095-DB/RAS24032021ITA112019_121734.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