2016 (4) TMI 170 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal admitted on second substantial question of law Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that no penalty is imposable under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act?

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Entitlement to deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act:
The Respondent-Assessee, engaged in construction, claimed a deduction under Section 80IB(10) for a housing project. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim as the area of flats exceeded the permissible limit. This disallowance was upheld in appeal. Simultaneously, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated based on the claim of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal, upon review, found that the construction was as per approved plans, completion certificates were obtained, and the sale of flats to the same family was not barred during the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the penalty was deleted as the claim was based on interpretation and the issue was debatable. The Tribunal's decision was supported by precedents and the fact that the appeal on the deduction itself was admitted, indicating a debatable issue. Thus, the Tribunal's decision on this issue was upheld.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act:
The Tribunal found no grounds to impose a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the claim for deduction under Section 80IB(10) was based on valid grounds and interpretation. Despite the similarity of issues with a previous quantum appeal, the Tribunal admitted the question of penalty to maintain consistency and avoid conflicting decisions. It was noted that revisiting the assessment and penalty issues when already decided in quantum proceedings was unnecessary and a pure issue of law. The Tribunal's decision to consider the penalty issue was supported to ensure uniformity and avoid contradictory outcomes. Therefore, the Tribunal's stance on the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was upheld.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the validity of the deduction claim under Section 80IB(10) and the rationale behind deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) based on the circumstances and legal interpretations presented during the proceedings.