2016 (8) TMI 611 - HC - Income Tax

Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - claim of depreciation - Held that - Claims have been disclosed by the assessee by way of Notes No.4 and 7 to the Balance sheet and considering the authorities cited at the bar by the learned Counsel for the assessee, this Court is the opinion that this will not amount to concealment and therefore will not attract penalty. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the CIT (A). Accordingly, Tax Appeal is allowed by answering the issue raised in this appeal in favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to ITAT order reversing CIT (A) findings and confirming AO order; Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to ITAT Order
The appellant challenged the ITAT order in ITA No.4232/Ahd/2007 for the assessment year 1998-99. The ITAT reversed the CIT (A) findings and confirmed the AO order. The specific disallowances made by the AO were challenged, leading to penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee, canceling the penalty. However, the Tribunal restored the penalty concerning the disallowance of depreciation on technical knowhow and interest paid on APSEB, leading to the present appeal.

Issue 2: Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c)
The substantial question of law raised was whether the ITAT was correct in confirming the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contended that the claims were disclosed in the balance sheet notes and attached with the return of income. The CIT (A) observed similarities with a previous year's case where the penalty was deleted by the Tribunal due to full disclosure. The appellant's senior counsel cited relevant case laws supporting non-levy of penalty for full disclosure of claims. The appellant argued that the claims were subject to pending riders before the Tribunal, citing the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reliance Petroproducts. The Court referenced Geeta Prints (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and Commissioner of Income-tax v S.M. Construction, where penalties were not imposed due to full disclosure and bona fide claims.

Judgment:
After hearing both parties and considering the disclosures made by the assessee in the balance sheet notes, the Court opined that such disclosures did not amount to concealment warranting a penalty. The Court agreed with the CIT (A) and allowed the Tax Appeal in favor of the assessee, ruling against the department's position on the penalty issue.