2018 (11) TMI 390 - AT - Income Tax

Levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - treating income from sale of fixed assets as well income by way of profit from sale of other fixed assets to be income from core shipping activities albeit the said claim stood rejected by all the authorities concurrently including Mumbai-tribunal in assessee s own case for impugned assessment year 2006-07 - Held that - This issue being debatable involving interpretation of legal provisions of a newly inserted special scheme of taxation of shipping companies and the explanations offered by the assessee to that effect cannot be termed as not bonafide albeit rejected even by tribunal in quantum. Thus due to detailed reasoning as set out above , we are of the considered view that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act in the instant case before us is not exigible as explanations as were submitted by the assessee were bonafide explanations which has taken it out of clutches of penalty provisions as were contained in Section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act and hence we have no hesitation in deleting the penalty as levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of administrative expenses against interest and dividend income.
2. Treatment of profit on the sale of ships and fixed assets as core shipping activities.
3. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Administrative Expenses Against Interest and Dividend Income:
The assessee, engaged in the merchant shipping business, declared income under the tonnage tax scheme and computed tonnage income per Section 115VG of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed administrative expenses of ?6,28,79,765/- against interest income of ?172.11 crores and ?7,33,346/- against dividend income of ?2.01 crores, which were allocated based on turnover as per Section 115VJ. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed these expenses, stating that interest income from surplus funds is to be treated as income from other sources, not business income, as it lacks an immediate nexus with the business. The AO relied on various case laws, including Shree Krishna Polyster Limited v. DCIT and CIT v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equipment.

The tribunal upheld the AO's decision, stating that the said income could not be said to have been earned by carrying on any separate business activity other than the tonnage tax business as envisaged in Section 115VJ. The tribunal also noted that the assessee's claim was based on a bonafide belief, but it was not accepted by the authorities. However, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court admitted substantial questions of law on this issue, indicating its debatable nature.

2. Treatment of Profit on the Sale of Ships and Fixed Assets as Core Shipping Activities:
The assessee treated profit on the sale of ships (?12.10 crores) and fixed assets (?29 lakh) as part of core shipping activities. The AO, CIT(A), and the tribunal held against the assessee, stating that these profits do not fall within the purview of core shipping business activities as defined under Section 115VI(2). The tribunal referenced its decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, where similar issues were decided against the assessee.

The tribunal noted that the assessee's belief that these profits were part of core shipping activities was not ex-facie illegal and was based on a plausible interpretation of the newly inserted Chapter XII-G. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court admitted substantial questions of law on this issue as well, further indicating its debatable nature.

3. Levy of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) for Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars of Income:
The AO levied a penalty of ?2,09,60,863/- under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by claiming disallowed administrative expenses and treating profits from the sale of ships and fixed assets as core shipping activities. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating that the assessee's claims were not bonafide and amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

The tribunal, however, held that the assessee's explanations were bonafide and based on a plausible interpretation of the newly introduced Chapter XII-G. The tribunal noted that the assessee made full disclosures in its return and during assessment proceedings, and the issues were debatable. The tribunal relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., which held that mere rejection of a legal claim does not automatically lead to the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

The tribunal also referenced the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in the case of Nayan Builders and Developers, which indicated that the admission of substantial questions of law by the High Court suggests the debatable nature of the issues, thereby supporting the deletion of the penalty.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeals, deleting the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) for both AY 2006-07 and 2005-06, holding that the assessee's explanations were bonafide and the issues were debatable. The tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the newly introduced Chapter XII-G and the full disclosures made by the assessee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court's admission of substantial questions of law further supported the tribunal's conclusion.

← Previous Next →