S. 271(1)(c) — Penalty for concealment of income — Additions/disallowances sustained by the appellate authority — Whether sufficient ground for levy of penalty — Since full disclosure of particulars of transactions were made and additions were on ac-count

ITAT ‘E’ Bench, Mumbai

Before D. Manoharan (VP) and

R. K. Panda (AM)

ITA No. 914/Mum./2008

A.Y. : 2004-05. Decided on : 23-10-2009

Counsel for revenue/assessee : S. K. Singh/

Arvind Dalal

S. 271(1)(c) — Penalty for concealment of income —
Additions/disallowances sustained by the appellate authority — Whether
sufficient ground for levy of penalty — Since full disclosure of particulars
of transactions were made and additions were on ac-count of different view
adopted, penalty cannot be imposed.

Per R. K. Panda :

Facts :

The assessee was a company incorporated in 1983. During the
year it had not carried on the business and it had returned a loss of Rs.1.41
crore. On account of the flood which took place on 26/27 July in Mumbai, all
its records and documents got destroyed and it was not able to produce
documents asked for by the AO. However, a copy of the police complaint and the
certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer evaluating the bad impact of the
flood and loss of material were furnished by the assessee. The AO however,
completed the assessment u/s.144 determining income at Nil after setting off
carried forward loss of Rs.11.15 lacs. The major disallowances made were as
under :

à
Stock valuation : A plot of land of Rs.6.56 crore, held as stock in
trade, was mortgaged to a bank. In order to recover its dues, the bank had
initiated the process of the sale of plot and the sale price mentioned was
Rs.5.2 crore. In view of the same, the assessee had valued the plot of land
at the said price thereby resulting into a loss of Rs.1.35 crore. The AO was
not satisfied with the explanation and disregarded the downward valuation of
stock;

à
Depreciation : Since the Company was defunct, according to the AO, it
cannot be allowed depreciation of Rs.9.74 lacs.

The assessee did not prefer any appeal when the AO’s order
was upheld by the CIT(A). The AO initiated penalty proceedings and after
hearing, held that the assessee was in default u/s.271(1)(c) read with
Explanation 4(a). He accordingly, levied penalty of Rs.54.46 lacs being the
minimum penalty @100% of tax sought to be evaded.

The CIT(A) on appeal cancelled the penalty levied as
according to him, no inaccurate particulars were furnished by the assessee and
the disallowance was not based on any independent evidence brought on record
by the AO.

Before the Tribunal the Revenue submitted that the
non-filing of any appeal against the assessment order amounted to the
acceptance by the assessee that it had furnished inaccurate particulars.
Further, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Others, it contended that mens rea was not an
essential condition for levying of penalty.

Held :

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made full
disclosure of all the particulars relating to the transactions in its accounts
filed with the Income-tax Department. The additions were made merely because
the AO did not share the views of the assessee. It was not disputed that the
plot of land was treated as stock in trade and was sold at a loss. As regards
claim for depreciation, it was noted that there were diverse decisions, both
for and against the assessee when the business was discontinued. As regards
the other expenses disallowed, it agreed with the assessee that in order to
maintain the corporate entity, certain expenses need to be incurred. Thus,
according to it, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra
Textiles was not applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee. Further,
according to it there was sufficient force in the assessee’s submission that,
in view of the huge amount of brought forward losses, no appeal was filed
against the CIT(A)’s order. For the reasons stated as above, it was held that
the CIT(A) was justified in cancelling the penalty.

Case referred to :

Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Others, 306 ITR 277 (SC).