9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1714 - HC - Income TaxPenalty under Section 271(1)(C) - Deduction u/s 10B computation - HELD THAT - Since the Tribunal has reiterated the findings of facts that both the additions made to the income of the Assessee having been set aside following the decision of the High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd 2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT as far as issue of Section 10B is concerned and on the issue of excess stock being tax neutral, such cogent and reasonable findings of facts returned by the learned Tribunal and consequentially setting aside the penalty under Section 271 1 c of the Act, does not give rise to any substantial question of law requiring the consideration by this Court under Section 260-A of the Act. Appeal filed by the Revenue is thus found to be without merit and liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Excessive deduction claimed under Section 10B of the Act. 3. Additions made in the income on account of alleged excess stock. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act: The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which had set aside the penalties imposed on the Assessee by the Assessing Authority. The Tribunal, applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. and the jurisdictional High Court in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, held that mere addition to returned income does not result in automatic levy of penalty. The Tribunal found no conclusive evidence from the Assessing Officer (AO) that the explanation provided by the Assessee was false or not bona fide. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty. 2. Excessive Deduction Claimed under Section 10B of the Act: The Tribunal noted that the method of computation used by the Assessee for the deduction under Section 10B was supported by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Tata Elxsi. The addition was made on a debatable point of law, and hence, no penalty was leviable. The Tribunal found no justification in the Revenue’s grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeals. 3. Additions Made in the Income on Account of Alleged Excess Stock: The Tribunal addressed the Assessee’s cross objections regarding the penalty for excess stock found. The excess stock was due to wrong entries in the books of account, not purchases made outside the books. The Tribunal held that this was a tax-neutral entry as the higher closing stock in one year would be the opening stock in the next year. The Tribunal found no mala fides on the part of the Assessee and noted that the AO did not provide a finding on how the Assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty order was quashed due to the lack of such a finding. Further Analysis: The Revenue argued that the Assessee’s surrender of income after a search was not voluntary, and the penalty was justified. However, the Tribunal found that both the additions to the Assessee's income were set aside based on the High Court’s decision in Tata Elxsi and the tax-neutral nature of the excess stock. The Tribunal’s findings were cogent and reasonable, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration under Section 260-A of the Act. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding it without merit. The Tribunal's findings that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified were upheld. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. A copy of the order was to be sent to the Respondent-Assessee.
|
