2014 (12) TMI 143 - HC - Income Tax

Partial deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Inaccurate particulars furnished or not - Rejection of claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) could be a ground for invoking penalty or not - Held that - The AO has merely referred to the facts of the case on account of which, penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act came to be initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - despite the fact that show cause notice was served upon the assessee, the assessee had not responded, either by appearing before the AO or filing a written reply - CIT(A) rightly was of the view that this is not a case wherein income had been concealed by the assessee relying upon CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT - where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars a mere wrong claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars - the assessee had made a claim u/s 80IB (10) of the Act which was found to be not allowable - CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have rightly held that the assessee had disclosed all material facts and the revenue had not brought anything on the record that any particulars were not available to the AO thus, the order of the Tribunal is upheld Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to the order of the Tribunal confirming the deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeals arose from a common order of the Tribunal concerning assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The appellant-revenue contested the deletion of penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalties were deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal.

2. The appellant argued that the disallowances under section 80IB (10) of the Act were confirmed by both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. It was contended that the penalty for concealing income was justified as the assessee had intentionally claimed ineligible deductions under section 80IB (10) by obtaining revised approval. The appellant sought admission of the appeals based on these grounds.

3. The High Court examined the penalty order made by the Assessing Officer and noted that it lacked detailed reasons for concluding that the assessee had concealed income. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no concealment on the part of the assessee and ordered deletion of the penalty. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that incorrect claims do not necessarily constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars.

4. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal concurred that the assessee had disclosed all material facts, and there was no evidence that any particulars were unavailable to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal's findings were based on an appreciation of the evidence on record, without any legal infirmity or perversity. As no substantial question of law arose, the appeals were dismissed summarily.