9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 460 - AT - Income TaxPenalty under section 271(1)(c) - claim of deduction under section 80IA(iv) - Held that - We find merit in the claim of the assessee in this regard, where complete information was furnished by the assessee along with return of income and even during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished the requisite information. Since the total constructed area of Industrial Park was within limits of proposed area of Industrial Park, the assessee bonafidely believed that it was entitled to the claim of deduction under section 80IA(iv) of the Act and the same was made in the return of income. The said claim was further supported by various evidences filed by the assessee and also the claim was in tune with the audit report given by the Auditors. In the entirety of the above said facts and circumstances and applying the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ), we hold that there is no merit in levy of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act upon the assessee holding the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The conditions for levy of penalty for concealment having not been fulfilled, does not warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The Revenue's appeal challenges the order of CIT(A)-II, Pune, which deleted the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2009-10. The primary contention of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty without properly examining the facts and evidence presented by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the penalty order. Facts of the Case: The assessee, an AOP, declared income from business, commission, and other sources, and claimed a deduction of Rs. 6,71,40,572 under section 80IA(iv) for the sale of an Industrial Park. The AO disallowed a portion of this deduction (Rs. 53,79,539) because the construction of the 9th floor was not approved by the CBDT and was completed after the notified date. Consequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Assessee's Defense: The assessee argued that it had made a full disclosure of all material facts and believed in good faith that it was entitled to the deduction. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), which held that merely making an unsustainable claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. CIT(A)'s Findings: The CIT(A) found that the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts and had a bona fide belief in its eligibility for the deduction. The CIT(A) noted that the issue was debatable and involved interpretation of law, and thus, the assessee's claim did not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) emphasized that the disclosure of all material facts and the absence of any adverse audit comments supported the assessee's position. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, reiterating that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) requires proof of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that a claim made in good faith, even if disallowed, does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided all necessary information and acted in good faith, and the disallowance of the claim did not automatically lead to penalty. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming that the conditions for imposing a penalty under section 271(1)(c) were not met. The assessee had disclosed all material facts and acted in good faith, and the mere disallowance of a claim did not justify the penalty. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds of appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
|
