9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Non-disclosure of income by the assessee in the return of income. 3. Non-disclosure of the true nature of income during assessment proceedings. 4. Assessing Officer's finding on the assessee's conduct and belief regarding taxability. 5. Reliance on the Supreme Court decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. Summary: Issue 1: Deletion of Penalty Levied u/s 271(1)(c) The revenue challenged the order of CIT(A)-I, Pune, which deleted the penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee, a tax resident of Netherlands, received income from Indian affiliates for C-ICT services and corporate services, which it claimed as non-taxable under the DTAA between India and Netherlands. The AO concluded that these services were technical in nature and taxable as fees for technical services (FTS) u/s 9(1)(vii) and Article 12 of the DTAA. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, observing that the assessee had a bona fide belief in the non-taxability of the income, and there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Issue 2: Non-Disclosure of Income in the Return The revenue argued that the assessee did not disclose the income in its return. The assessee contended that it had disclosed all relevant facts and adopted a technical position based on the DTAA and judicial precedents. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had made full disclosure in the notes to the return and had a bona fide belief in the non-taxability of the income. Issue 3: Non-Disclosure of True Nature of Income During Assessment The revenue claimed that the assessee did not disclose the true nature of income during assessment proceedings. The AO examined the agreements and concluded that the services were technical and taxable. The assessee argued that it had provided all necessary details and had a bona fide belief in its claim. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation and deleted the penalty. Issue 4: Assessing Officer's Finding on Conduct and Belief The AO found that the assessee's conduct indicated no bona fide belief in the non-taxability of the income. The CIT(A) disagreed, stating that the assessee had consistently claimed non-taxability in previous years and had provided detailed explanations. The CIT(A) held that the assessee's belief was bona fide and the penalty was not justified. Issue 5: Reliance on Supreme Court Decision The revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in relying on the Supreme Court decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) found that the assessee's case was covered by the principles laid down in the said decision, which held that making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the issue was a matter of interpretation of law and treaty, and the assessee's claim was bona fide. Conclusion: The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty. The ITAT also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection as infructuous. The judgment emphasized that mere rejection of a bona fide claim does not warrant penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
|
