2014 (3) TMI 1174 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - exemption from tax under Section 10A denied - HELD THAT - AO took the view that no exemption can be given to the Noida unit in respect of the interest income and also initiated proceedings for the levy of penalty for both the years under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. The penalties were confirmed by the CIT (Appeals). The Tribunal cancelled them on the ground that questions of law have been framed by this Court in the appeals filed by the assessee in the assessment proceedings which indicated that the issue was debatable. Tribunal after considering these circumstances and relying upon CIT vs. HB Leasing and Finance Co. Ltd 2011 (2) TMI 434 - DELHI HIGH COURT where this Court held that when a question of law is framed in respect of the issue the matter can be said to be debatable so far as the application of Section 271(1)(c) is concerned held that the penalties were not warranted.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Imposition of penalty by ITAT for assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95.
2. Claim of interest deduction against taxable profits.
3. Exemption of Noida unit's profits under Section 10A.
4. Proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.
5. Confirmation of penalties by CIT (Appeals).
6. Tribunal's cancellation of penalties based on debatable issue.
7. Relevant case laws cited for penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the revenue's grievance against the ITAT's order deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The ITAT had canceled the penalty, leading to the revenue's appeal.

2. The assessee claimed interest deduction for the respective assessment years against its taxable profits from the Faridabad unit. The interest was paid to the Noida unit, which enjoyed tax exemption under Section 10A. The assessing officer disagreed with exempting the Noida unit's interest income and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for income concealment.

3. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the penalties, but the Tribunal overturned this decision. The Tribunal considered the issue debatable, referencing previous court cases like CIT vs. HB Leasing and Finance Co. Ltd. The Tribunal highlighted that when a question of law is framed, the application of Section 271(1)(c) becomes debatable, leading to the cancellation of penalties.

4. The High Court noted that in similar cases like Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Liquid Investment and Trading Co., penalties were deleted due to the debatable nature of the issues raised. The Court emphasized that where substantial questions of law are admitted and framed, the imposition of penalties cannot be justified. Consequently, the appeals lacking substantial legal questions were dismissed.

5. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalties imposed on the assessee for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The Court reiterated that when questions of law are debatable and admitted, penalties under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be enforced, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeals.