2012 (9) TMI 126 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)( c ) - claim of deduction of issue expenses u/s 35D & diminution in value of shares investment - Held that - It is an admitted position in the present case that no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate. It is not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect. Hence, at least, prima facie, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars - the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)( c ) - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
(A) Deletion of penalty on account of issue expenses under section 35D.
(B) Deletion of penalty on account of diminution in value of shares investment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue (A): Deletion of Penalty on Account of Issue Expenses under Section 35D
The Tribunal deleted a penalty amounting to Rs. 11,47,987/- imposed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent, a non-banking financial company, claimed this deduction, which was disallowed on the grounds that it is not an industrial undertaking. This disallowance had been consistent in previous years. The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the appellant, but the High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. The court emphasized that the respondent had disclosed all necessary facts in its return, and there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The court concluded that merely making an unsustainable claim in law does not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c).

Issue (B): Deletion of Penalty on Account of Diminution in Value of Shares Investment
The Tribunal also deleted a penalty amounting to Rs. 9,49,399/- imposed by the A.O. for the diminution in the value of shares held as investments. The deduction was disallowed on the grounds that profits and losses from the sale of these shares should be considered under "capital gains." The CIT (A) confirmed the penalty regarding this claim. The High Court, however, upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty, citing the same rationale as for Issue (A). It reiterated that the respondent had disclosed all material particulars, and the disallowance of the claim was purely a question of law. The court found no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the case did not raise a substantial question of law. It affirmed that the respondent had disclosed all necessary facts and that the disallowance of claims was purely a legal issue. The court emphasized that penalties under section 271(1)(c) are not applicable when there is no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, even if the claims made are ultimately found to be unsustainable in law. The judgment was guided by the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.