News Update

I-T - Technical issues faced in filing TDS return online are bona fide reason for delayed filing of TDS returns - penalty not warranted: ITATST - Refund - Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - No provision in CCR imposes restriction of requirement of registration as condition precedent for claiming CENVAT credit: CESTATMCA invites comments on Draft on cross-border insolvencyCCI gives nod to acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer AGSmuggling racket busted - Delhi DRI nabs 8 persons & seizes gold worth Rs 2.1 CroreIlegal immigration - enlarge labour market to deal with it: OECDShillong is selected as 100th city under Smart City MissionChief Economic Adviser Arvind Subramanian quits on family commitments groundCommerce Minister releases National Strategy for StandardizationComputation of interest - CBDT invites comments on amendment in Rule 10CB (See 'TII Brief')CBDT notifies PFC & Railway Finance Corp 54EC Capital Gains BondsGovt relieves IRS officer Nilimesh Baruah to join CTPA in OECD as Sr AdvisorGST Metered (See 'JEST GST on GST Home Page')J&K is back to Governor's Rule - 4th time in last 10 yearsGST: A Frightening but Fascinating Future world…! – Part II (See 'TOG INSIGHT' on 'Taxongo.com')ST - There is distinction between interest earned by bank and disaggregation of equated monthly instalments earned by financial institution engaged in financial leasing and hire-purchase: CESTATCMs subgroup set up on approaches to Agriculture & MGNREGSST - Fitment within an alternative classification suffices to erase proposal in the notice but cannot crystallize liability unless alternative was also proposed in notice: CESTATAdopt A Heritage Scheme - 6 MoUs are at advanced stageI-T - When statements taken during search are based on documents indicating that assessee collected cash receipts in addition to cheques, such situation comes within sweep of Explanation 5A(b) to Sec. 271(1)(c): ITATGovt targets 5GW wind energy by 2022Notfn. 12/2003-ST speaks of 'value' of materials and not 'cost' of materials - no reason to demand service tax on 10% profit at which material is sold by appellant: CESTATIndia aspires to be USD 10 trillion economy by 2030: DEA Secretarye-Way Bill - Govt introduces Unique Common Enrolment Number facility for transporters registered in many States with same PANCBIC revises new exchange rate for South African RandCBIC grants Non-Functional upgradation on ad hoc basis to 15 officersRailways aims at 2030 to become zero carbon emitterNIFTEM has potential to become Harvard of food processing sector: MinisterGST - Five key aspects GST payers should not miss!Pre-notice Regulations - Boon or Bane?HM calls for expediting online cybercrime reporting portal
 
I-T - Disclosure made after initiation of proceedings u/s 142, is not 'voluntary disclosure' and hence would not absolve assessee from rigours of penalty

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MAR 20, 2017: THE ISSUE IS - Whether the disclosure made by assessee only after the AO initiated proceedings u/s 142, is not a 'voluntary disclosure' and hence would not absolve the assessee from the rigours of penalty. YES is the verdict.

Facts of the case:

The assessee, engaged in shipping business, is assessed to tax under Chapter XIIG of the Act to the extent its income was earned from vessels, satisfying/ qualifying the requirements thereof. So far as the income from other vessels i.e. non-qualifying vessels was concerned, the same was subjected to tax under the head “Profit & Gain from its Business or Profession”. Thus, classifying its income as tonnage business and non-tonnage business. During the subject Assessment Year, the assessee had suffered foreign exchange loss in respect of its tonnage business. However, the above foreign exchange loss of Rs.9.37 lakhs was debited to compute its non-tonnage income while bringing it to tax under Profit & Gain from business or profession. Thereafter, the AO issued a notice u/s 142(1) & 143(2), calling various information regarding details of expenses debited in its Profit & Loss Account and expenses incurred on account of foreign exchange. Thereafter, the assessee responded to the same and the AO determined the assessee's income at Rs.2.58 Crores u/s 143(3). This was after adding the foreign exchange loss of Rs.9.37 lakhs which had been incorrectly debited while computing its non-tonnage income. The order of the AO recorded that this was done after it was found on verification that no foreign exchange loss was incurred in respect of non-tonnage income. Besides, initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Thereafter, an order was passed imposing a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.3.09 lakhs, wherein it specifically recorded the fact that though there were no transaction in foreign currency resulting in foreign exchange loss, in case of non-tonnage income, yet the assessee had debited exchange loss to its non-tonnage business only to reduce its non-tonnage income being offered to tax.

On appeal, the HC held that,

++ it is clear that notice u/s 142(1) and 143(2) were issued to the assessee seeking details of expenses debited to Profit and Loss Account, along with details of foreign exchange expenses. Even according to the assessee, the alleged mistake on its part was pointed out by a letter during assessment proceedings, where it stated that it had committed a mistake in debiting foreign exchange loss to its determine non-tonnage income, when in fact, no foreign exchange loss was involved in respect of its non-tonnage business. Thus, it is clear that so-called mistake as claimed by the assesssee, was only after notices were issued u/s 142 & 143. It was only an attempt to pre-empt the Revenue finding out the the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was voluntary disclosure. In fact, the Apex Court in MAK Data (P) Ltd., has observed that: "the findings of AO shall not be carried away by the plea of Assessee like 'voluntary disclosure', 'buy peace', 'avoid litigation', 'amicable settlement' etc. to explain its conduct." The Apex Court has also further observed that "It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty." In the peculiar fact of the present case, the socalled voluntary disclosure was only after the AO initiated proceedings u/s 142. Thus, it was not a voluntary disclosure. In fact, the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) also records the fact of verification by the AO, leading to a finding that the assessee had debited foreign exchange loss to arrive its non-tonnage income. It is only in penalty proceedings that this issue is raised for the first time. Further, the assessee besides stating it is a mistake, has not offered any explanation. Therefore, the explanation u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not found to be satisfactory by the authorities under the Act and penalty imposed and sustained.

(See 2017-TIOL-519-HC-MUM-IT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS