2014 (11) TMI 1035 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of deduction claimed u/s 10B - CIT(A) deleted penalty - Held that - This is a fact that the Tribunal has set aside the disallowance made by the AO in respect of which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied and has allowed the claim of the Assessee u/s 10B. In view this fact, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of CIT(A). We accordingly confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c). - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for inaccurate particulars of income in relation to deduction claimed u/s 10B.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of CIT(A) imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income regarding the claim of deduction u/s 10B. The AO had initially levied the penalty based on the Assessee's claim for deduction u/s 10B, stating that the claim was not valid and amounted to concealment of income. The AO argued that the Assessee knowingly claimed a deduction it was not entitled to, leading to evasion of taxes. The AO highlighted that other companies engaged in similar activities were not making such claims, making the Assessee's case stand out. The AO imposed a penalty of Rs. 200,00,00,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. The CIT(A) reviewed the penalty order and the Assessee's submissions. The CIT(A) observed that the AO had denied the claim mainly on the grounds that the Assessee's units were not engaged in manufacturing, were not new units, and did not maintain separate books of accounts for 100% EOU's. However, the Hon'ble ITAT examined these issues and ruled in favor of the Assessee. Since the ITAT allowed the 10B claim for all the 100% EOU's, the CIT(A) concluded that there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the Assessee. The CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 200,00,00,000 imposed under section 271(1)(c).

3. The ITAT, after considering the submissions, noted that it had set aside the disallowance made by the AO, which led to the penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c). The ITAT had allowed the Assessee's claim u/s 10B in its previous order. Therefore, the ITAT found no fault with the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. Consequently, the ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)'s order of deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c).

4. Ultimately, the ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, upholding the decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate particulars of income related to the deduction claimed u/s 10B. The ITAT's decision was based on the fact that the ITAT had allowed the Assessee's claim u/s 10B, thereby negating the grounds for penalty imposition.