9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (6) TMI 489 - AT - Income TaxPenalty - It is in respect of the disallowances made by the A.O u/s 14A to Rs. 3,10,058 and u/s 80HHC at Rs. 4,92,99,692 - Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Ltd (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT) it was held that merely because the assessee has made some legal claim which has not been accepted by the A.O. that will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income of the assessee Appeal is allowed
Issues Involved:
1. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for disallowance under Section 14A. 2. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for disallowance under Section 80HHC. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Disallowance under Section 14A Factual Matrix: The assessee, engaged in the manufacture and trading of pharmaceuticals and chemicals, declared a dividend income of Rs. 2,95,58,090/- and claimed it as exempt under Section 10(33). The AO disallowed Rs. 44,21,890/- as expenditure relatable to earning the dividend income under Section 14A. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to Rs. 3,10,058/-. Arguments and Findings: The assessee argued that Section 14A was inserted with retrospective effect by the Finance Act 2001 and that the disallowance was a debatable issue. The assessee contended that merely making a legal claim does not attract penalty. The AO's interpretation led to the levy of penalty, but the Tribunal found that the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Ltd, which held that merely because a claim is not accepted does not justify penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that no penalty was sustainable for the disallowance under Section 14A. 2. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Disallowance under Section 80HHC Factual Matrix: The AO disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80HHC, citing a negative figure arising from the proviso to Section 80HHC(3). The CIT(A) directed that only 30% of the export profit of eligible units should be reduced from the profit of the business for computing the deduction under Section 80HHC. Both the assessee and the revenue challenged this decision before the Tribunal. Arguments and Findings: The assessee argued that all particulars were disclosed, and no inaccurate particulars were furnished. The Tribunal noted that the issue was purely an interpretation of statutory provisions. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in Dilip N Shroff vs JCIT and Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors, which clarified that 'mens rea' is not necessary for civil liability under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal found that the AO, CIT(A), and Tribunal had only interpreted the provisions differently and that this did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for the penalty on the claim under Section 80HHC and deleted the entire penalty. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, canceling the penalty order passed by the AO. The decision emphasized that making a legal claim, even if not accepted, does not justify the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Order Pronounced: The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced on the 30th day of June 2010.
|
