9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 661 - HC - Income TaxPenalty levied under section 271 (1)(c) - income from other sources - Held that - Tibunal s conclusion with regard to the treatment of interest income cannot be found fault with. The reason for the same is that not only was the issue debatable, but also there was no attempt to either conceal the particulars of the said income, or, to furnish inaccurate particulars as alleged or at all. That the issue is debatable is also apparent upon reading of the judgement in the matter of Indian Oil Panipat Power consortium Limited, New Delhi V. Income Tax Officer, (2009 (2) TMI 32 - DELHI HIGH COURT). Loss returned by the Assessee is concerned, to our minds, that aspect of the matter needs re-examination by the Tribunal, as there is no discussion qua that aspect of the matter. As to whether the Assessee was entitled to book losses, when commercial production had not commenced, though, business had been set up - was an issue, which had to be examined, in the light of the facts obtaining in the matter and the judgements on the point, including the judgements rendered in CIT V. Samsung India Electronics Limited, (2013 (7) TMI 335 - DELHI HIGH COURT) and CIT V. ESPN Software India Private Limited, (2008 (3) TMI 90 - DELHI HIGH COURT). The Tribunal should have held one way or the other as to whether, the issue was debatable; an aspect which has not been satisfactorily dealt with by the Tribunal. Matter remanded back to the Tribunal - Appeal partially allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Treatment of interest income from short-term deposits. 3. Filing of loss return when commercial production had not commenced. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Penalty Levied under Section 271(1)(c): The core issue is whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was right in law in deleting the penalty of ?3,66,57,057/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was initially imposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax for the alleged failure to furnish true particulars in the return filed under Section 139 of the Act. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, and the ITAT upheld this deletion. The High Court had to determine if this deletion was valid. 2. Treatment of Interest Income from Short-term Deposits: The Assessee had treated the interest received on short-term deposits as business receipts, while the Revenue contended it should be treated as income from other sources. The Assessee argued that the interest income was inextricably linked with its business activity and thus should be capitalized and set off against pre-operative expenses. The Assessing Officer added the interest income to the total income under Section 56 of the Act, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Tuticorin Alkalies, Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal both accepted that the treatment of interest income was a debatable issue. The Tribunal noted that the Assessee had clearly indicated in the balance sheet that it had set off the interest received against interest payable on debentures, thus ruling out concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. 3. Filing of Loss Return When Commercial Production Had Not Commenced: The Assessee filed a loss return of ?10,12,37,470/-, which included interest income, despite not having commenced commercial production. The penalty order noted that this loss would not have come to light without scrutiny. The CIT(A) relied on the Supreme Court judgment in CIT Vs. Prithipal Singh, which held that no penalty could be imposed if there was no taxable income or tax assessed for payment during a particular year. However, this judgment was later overturned by subsequent Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal did not adequately address whether the Assessee was entitled to book losses when commercial production had not commenced but the business had been set up. The High Court noted that this issue required re-examination by the Tribunal, considering relevant judgments and facts. Conclusion: The High Court partially allowed the appeal, directing the Tribunal to re-examine whether the Assessee's filing of a loss return constituted concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal's conclusion regarding the treatment of interest income was upheld, as it was deemed a debatable issue with no intent to conceal or furnish inaccurate particulars. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
|
