2018 (8) TMI 1783 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - exemption under sections 11 and 12 denied - CIT(A) deleted the penalty on the ground that assessee has succeeded before the Gujarat High Court in quantum additions. Same was the view expressed by the Tribunal - HELD THAT - Though neither CIT(A) nor Tribunal have based the conclusions on the question of very imposability of penalty, to us it plainly appears that even if the judgement in case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2017 (5) TMI 1468 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) were to be reversed and quantum additions were to be sustained, there is no question of imposing penalty. All along AUDA had filed its return and put forth the exemption claimed. Though such a claim is granted is not besides the point. This is not a case where a totally unsustainable and fictitious claim is put forth. This is a case where a statutory body has been contending that looking to its creation, constitution and kind of activities carried on, exemption under the Act is available. This claim is accepted by the Gujarat High Court in a detailed reasoned judgment - Under the circumstances, in any eventuality no case of penalty is made out. Tax Appeal is therefore dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act - Finality of quantum appeal decision - Admissibility of appeal by the Revenue.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal by the Revenue challenging the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The main question raised for consideration was whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty does not survive, given that the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the quantum appeal had not attained finality due to a Special Leave Petition filed by the department before the Supreme Court. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2010-11 and the respondent-assessee was the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA), claiming exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act as a statutory body engaged in planned development activities. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of ?101.24 crores, but the CIT(A) and the Tribunal deleted the penalty based on the success of the assessee in the quantum additions before the Gujarat High Court.

The Revenue contended that the quantum appeal decision in favor of the assessee had not achieved finality as the matter was pending before the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition. However, the Court observed that even if the High Court's decision were to be reversed and the quantum additions sustained, there would be no basis for imposing a penalty. The Court emphasized that the AUDA had consistently filed its returns and claimed exemptions based on its statutory status and activities, which were ultimately accepted by the Gujarat High Court in a detailed reasoned judgment. The Court concluded that since the claim was not entirely unsustainable or fictitious and was supported by legal arguments, there was no justification for imposing a penalty in any scenario. Therefore, the Tax Appeal was dismissed, upholding the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal.