2015 (7) TMI 744 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) invoking Section 273B - assessee having incorrectly claimed the benefit of Section 80IB(10)- Tribunal canceling the penalty - Held that - The grievance of the revenue is that the respondent-assessee is not entitled to claim the benefit of Section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of project Wings A to D. There is no dispute with regard to the same. It is further submitted that the revised return was filed only after the survey was conducted by the revenue. This is not factually correct as the Tribunal in the impugned order observes that there was nothing on record to indicate what was the finding in survey. In the absence of some positive evidence on the part of the revenue that it is the survey which led the respondent-assessee to file revised return of income and/or withdraw its claim for the benefit of Section 80IB of the Act, it is not open to hold that only because of the survey, the claim for benefit of Section 80IB of the Act was withdrawn. In these circumstances, we find that the view taken by the Tribunal on the facts before it was a very possible view. Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2004-05.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the revenue challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal') regarding the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2004-05.

2. The respondent-assessee initially claimed a deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act for a building project. After a survey on the premises, the assessee filed a revised return withdrawing the claim for the benefit of Section 80IB(10) for a specific part of the project. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars.

3. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, but the Tribunal concluded that the assessee had a reasonable cause to claim that the specific part of the project was separate, justifying the withdrawal of the claim. The Tribunal held that there was no penalty to be imposed under Section 273B of the Act.

4. The revenue contended that the revised return was filed only after the survey, implying mala fide intent. However, the Tribunal found no evidence linking the survey to the revised return filing. Without concrete evidence, it was not valid to assume a causal link between the survey and the revised return.

5. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the Tribunal's view was reasonable based on the facts. The Court found that the questions of law proposed by the revenue were not substantial, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

6. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the Tribunal's decision was based on a plausible view considering the circumstances. No costs were awarded in this matter.