2013 (3) TMI 556 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act - Disallowance of differential interest paid on inter corporate deposits - Other disallowances - Assessment U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Held that - The ld.CIT(A) restricted the disallowance of interest On further appeal by the Revenue to the Tribunal, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue s appeal and upheld the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). - The claim of the assessee cannot be considered as false to attract the rigours of penalty u/s 271(1)( c) which is quasi criminal in nature and accordingly deleted the penalty. Following the decision of the the Hon ble Apex Court in CIT V/s Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.(2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT), 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 case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of differential interest on inter corporate deposits.
2. Penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

Disallowance of Differential Interest:
The appellant, a company engaged in transport, retail, and export businesses, faced disallowance of differential interest on inter corporate deposits by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO noted that the appellant paid interest at 17% to one entity but charged 12% from another, leading to a disallowance of Rs. 12,07,637 based on a direct nexus between interest paid and received. The ld. CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to Rs. 10,30,966. The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, leading to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) initiated by the AO. The appellant contested the penalty, arguing full disclosure of material facts and reliance on various decisions.

Penalty Imposition:
The AO imposed a penalty of Rs. 12,37,158, which the ld. CIT(A) reduced to Rs. 4,12,386. The appellant challenged this penalty imposition before the Tribunal, citing a similar case where the penalty was deleted. The Tribunal, considering the Supreme Court's decision in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT, held that the claim of the appellant could not be considered false for penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal, following the decision in the appellant's own case and the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., deleted the penalty, emphasizing that a mere disagreement with the claim made by the assessee does not warrant penalty imposition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.