9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1356 - HC - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - ITAT deleting the penalty - Held that - The Court is of the view that the decision of the ITAT was a plausible one in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court is unable to agree with the Revenue that there is a deliberate concealment by the Assessee warranting the levy of penalty. No substantial question of law arises
Issues:
- Justification of deleting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by the ITAT. Analysis: The High Court of Delhi heard an appeal by the Revenue against an order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) relating to the Assessment Year 2003-04. The main issue was whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty imposed on the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee had claimed a deduction of ?64 lakhs as fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for capital enhancement under 'Administrative Expenses' in the Profit & Loss Account. The Revenue argued that despite being claimed as 'Administrative Expenses', the amount was a capital expenditure based on a Supreme Court decision. However, the ITAT, citing a different Supreme Court decision, concluded that there was no concealment of material particulars warranting a penalty. The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in observing that the Assessee had disclosed the facts in the income computation, presenting a revised computation statement as evidence. Conversely, the Assessee's counsel provided the P&L Account for the relevant year, showing the amount as 'Administrative Expenses' in the notes, which was acknowledged by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) leading to a revision under Section 263 of the Act. After considering the arguments, the Court found the ITAT's decision reasonable in the given circumstances. The Court disagreed with the Revenue's claim of deliberate concealment by the Assessee, leading to the penalty. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose from the case.
|
