9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (11) TMI 498 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) deduction u/s 80IA(4) claimed on belief that the nature of their activities fell under the work of infrastructure facility Held that - Mere erroneous claim in the absence of any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, is no ground for levying penalty, especially when there is nothing on record to show that any material particulars were concealed or furnished inaccurate as decided in CIT Versus BACARDI MARTINI INDIA LTD 2006 (9) TMI 104 - DELHI HIGH COURT . Claim for deduction u/s 80IA was duly supported by the certificate of the chartered accountant in the prescribed form. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the claim of the assessee that it had claimed the deduction in a bona fide manner. Thus levy of penalty is not justified - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO). 2. Whether the penalty order was arbitrary and did not consider the facts and circumstances. 3. Whether the penalty imposed should be deleted. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Penalty Order: The core issue was whether the penalty order passed by the AO was valid both in law and facts. The assessees claimed deductions under section 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which were disallowed by the AO. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating that the claim for deduction was not bona fide and that the assessees were not eligible for the deduction under section 80IA as they were not developers but merely contractors. The CIT(A) emphasized that the Explanation below section 80IA(13) was inserted by the Finance Act, 2007, effective from 01.04.2000, and was on the statute book when the returns were filed. Therefore, the claim was not debatable or bona fide. 2. Arbitrary Nature of the Penalty Order: The assessees argued that the penalty order was arbitrary as it did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case. They contended that the deduction was claimed based on the advice of their Chartered Accountant and the prescribed report in form no. 10CCB. They also pointed out that the amendment to section 80IA via the Finance Act, 2007, was made just before the filing of the return and escaped their attention. The Tribunal noted that the assessees had disclosed full details at the time of assessment and the deduction was claimed in a bona fide manner based on the CA's certificate. The Tribunal found that the AO did not establish that the claim was ex facie bogus or not made on the basis of a CA's certificate. The Tribunal concluded that the mere rejection of a claim does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 3. Deletion of Penalty Imposed: The Tribunal examined whether the penalty should be deleted. They referred to various judicial decisions, including the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd., which held that a mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal also noted that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic and requires a finding that the explanation offered by the assessee was false or not bona fide. In this case, the Tribunal found that the assessees had offered a bona fide explanation and disclosed all material facts. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was not justified and should be deleted. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals, vacated the findings of the CIT(A), and canceled the penalties imposed by the AO. The Tribunal held that the erroneous claim for deduction under section 80IA, in the absence of any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, was not a ground for levying penalty. The appeals were allowed, and the penalties were deleted.
|
