2010 (5) TMI 535 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction under section 80-IB(10) - The assessee-company is engaged in the business of development and construction Disallowance of certain deduction - The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment also initiated penalty of ₹ 267644 proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the amount of miscellaneous income ₹ 7,31,491 as the same is not eligible for the said deduction - Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. ( 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT Mere making wrong claim is not at par with concealment or giving of inaccurate information, which may call for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of deduction under section 80-IB(10) for miscellaneous income.
2. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate particulars of income.
3. Appeal against the deletion of penalty by the ld. CIT(A).

Issue 1: Disallowance of deduction under section 80-IB(10) for miscellaneous income:
The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80-IB(10) due to net miscellaneous income not qualifying for the deduction. The ld. CIT(A) found that the assessee was under a bona fide impression regarding the eligibility of the income for deduction, leading to the deletion of the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate particulars of income:
The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) based on the disallowance of deduction under section 80-IB(10) for miscellaneous income. The Assessing Officer believed that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income, leading to the imposition of a penalty. However, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty, stating that the assessee had a genuine belief in the eligibility of the claimed deduction, and there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

Issue 3: Appeal against the deletion of penalty by the ld. CIT(A):
The revenue appealed before the Appellate Tribunal challenging the deletion of the penalty by the ld. CIT(A). The revenue argued that the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified, emphasizing that the assessee failed to substantiate its explanation and prove its bona fide belief. The Tribunal considered the arguments of both parties and referred to relevant legal precedents, including the decision in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue's appeal, stating that making a wrong claim does not equate to concealment or furnishing inaccurate information warranting a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the legal principles applied, and the final decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal.