Not Filing Appeal against Quantum Addition Not Admission of Concealment: ITAT Deletes 200% Income Tax Penalty [Read Order]

The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that an assessee's decision not to challenge a quantum addition before appellate authorities cannot be treated as an admission of concealment or misreporting; the Tribunal thus quashed a 200% penalty levied on the assessee under Section 270A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961.

Ajay Maheshwari had originally filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring a total income of ₹2,84,83,930. He subsequently revised the return under Section 139(5), reducing declared income to ₹36,00,740, claiming that the difference of ₹2,48,83,196 was received from Oasis International HK Ltd. - a one-person company incorporated in Hong Kong of which he was the sole shareholder; the assessee held that such income was not taxable in India.

The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the claim and completed assessment, restoring the original income, while levying penalty of ₹1,79,64,198 at 200% of the differential tax under Section 270A(9)(a) for misreporting through misrepresentation and suppression of facts.

The AO based their reasoning on the fact that the assessee had not filed an appeal against the quantum addition, and that such abstinence amounted to acceptance of his concealment of income. The penalty was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Taxes (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ); a similar penalty of ₹1,76,75,522 was confirmed for the AY 2018-19.

Counsel for the assessee submitted before ITAT that penalty proceedings are separate and independent from assessment proceedings. It was further argued that the decision not to contest an addition may stem from commercial expediency, litigation cost, or a desire to buy peace of mind, and cannot automatically translate into an admission of concealment.

On the other hand, the Departmental Representative contended that by not challenging the addition, the assessee had effectively accepted that his claim was untenable, justifying the AO’s claims of under-reporting and misreporting of income.

Judicial Member Pawan Singh and Accountant Member Khettra Mohan Roy \rejected the Revenue's reasoning, noting that it is a settled proposition of law that assessment and penalty proceedings are separate and independent, and an assessee may choose not to contest an addition for several reasons best known to him.

The Revenue’s claim that non-filing of appeal amounted to acceptance of concealment was described as "tenuous and rests on a shaky foundation". The bench further noted that the penalty order was found to have been passed "in a most dismissive and laconic manner" without properly appreciating the distinction between a legally unsustainable claim and deliberate misreporting or suppression of facts.

Accordingly, ITAT quashed the penalty in both assessment years and allowed the assessee's appeals.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates