Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2023 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 89 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTPenalty u/s 271(1) (c) - sale tax exemptions were held to be a revenue receipt of the assessee company and addition was made to the total income of the assessee - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the issue was, whether the sales tax exemption availed during the relevant year as capital receipt, was to be held as revenue in nature. Appellate Authority observed that the penalty for the assessment year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 has been deleted by the CIT (Appeals). Reference was made to the judgment passed in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty levied under Section 271 (1) (c) in the case of M/s Abhishek Industries Ltd.’s case [2006 (8) TMI 123 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] on the identical issue has already been deleted by the CIT (A)-1, Ludhiana - In this backdrop, the appeal filed by the assessee (respondent herein) was allowed. Against the said order, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.01.2014 (Annexure A-4). In the present case, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in M/s Amtek Auto Ltd. [2013 (6) TMI 133 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that merely for the reason that the assessee had claimed the expenditure to be revenue would not render the assessee liable to penalty proceedings. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gurdaspur Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. [2013 (3) TMI 175 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] there was no dispute about the quantum of receipt of grant-in-aid from the State Government. The assessee had reflected the same as capital receipt, whereas it had been treated to be a revenue receipt. The Court observed that the issue, whether the amount of grant-in-aid was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt, was a debatable issue. In this backdrop, the penalty could not be imposed u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, as the main issue was only with respect to the interpretation, as to whether the subsidy taken by the respondent-assessee was to be treated as revenue or capital and this would not amount to non disclosure of any source of income, which would be liable for imposition of penalty.
|