2011 (11) TMI 46 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty under Section 80HHF - on account of filing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income pertaining to deduction under Section 80HHF of the Income Tax Act - AO contended that necessary conditions for claiming deduction under the said Section were not satisfied, as the assessee had not exported any software, but merely provided services of technicians and helpers for shooting by foreign clients - Held that - for the purpose of claiming benefit under Section 80HHF of the Act, ownership of goods is not essential as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sea Pearl Industries and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2001 -TMI - 40266 - SUPREME Court). - Thus, when two views were possible and the assessee made the claim on the basis of advice of the consultants, it was not a case where the penalty should have been imposed. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty levied for filing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income under Section 80HHF of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Applicability of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for imposing penalty.
3. Interpretation of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) regarding concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars.
4. Relevance of Supreme Court judgments in similar cases.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Penalty Levied for Filing Inaccurate Particulars of Income/Concealment of Income under Section 80HHF of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was correct in law in deleting the penalty of Rs. 10,94,657/- levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) for filing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income pertaining to deduction under Section 80HHF of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80HHF on the grounds that the necessary conditions were not satisfied, as the assessee had not exported any software but merely provided services of technicians and helpers for shooting by foreign clients.

2. Applicability of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Imposing Penalty:
Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty can be imposed if the AO or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The AO imposed the penalty on the ground that the assessee had claimed a wrongful deduction under Section 80HHF. However, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty, and this decision was affirmed by the ITAT.

3. Interpretation of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) Regarding Concealment of Income and Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars:
Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) provides that if a person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be false, or offers an explanation which he cannot substantiate and fails to prove that the explanation is bona fide, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income shall be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Atul Mohan Bindal explained that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability, and mens rea is not essential.

4. Relevance of Supreme Court Judgments in Similar Cases:
The CIT(A) and ITAT relied on the Supreme Court judgment in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd., which held that if all facts in respect of a claim are correctly mentioned or stated before the AO, then making a claim and its disallowance will not lead to the inference of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The ITAT observed that the claim was supported by an audit report, and there was no basis to hold that the claim was dishonestly made in collusion with the auditors. The ITAT also noted that the issue required deep scrutiny into the facts and proper application of the law, and the claim was rejected on legal grounds.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty, noting that the claim was bona fide and supported by an audit report. The Tribunal found no evidence of deliberate or knowing furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's view, adding that ownership of goods is not essential for claiming benefit under Section 80HHF, as held by the Supreme Court in Sea Pearl Industries and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. Consequently, the High Court answered the question in favor of the assessee and dismissed the appeal, concluding that penalty should not have been imposed when two views were possible, and the claim was made based on the advice of consultants.

← Previous Next →