2008 (4) TMI 29 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) due to inaccurate particulars of income by wrongly claiming the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of I.T.Act as the co-operative society was engaged in manufacturing and not in marketing business - At the relevant time there were several decisions to support the view that marketing includes processing to make the produce marketable Since the assessee was having a bonafide belief it would not be right to condemn as a false return inviting imposition of penalty.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961:
The case involved a cooperative society claiming exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act for income earned from manufacturing activities. The Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption, leading to penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal upheld the disallowance initially, but later canceled the penalty. The High Court analyzed the claim's legitimacy, considering conflicting interpretations in various court decisions. It noted that at the time of filing the return, the society had a bonafide belief in entitlement based on precedents like Baroach District Cotton Sales Ginning case and others. The Court highlighted the debatable nature of the issue and the society's compliance with advance and self-assessment tax payments without considering the disputed deduction. It concluded that the claim was bonafide, all income particulars were disclosed, and no attempt to defraud the revenue was evident.

Issue 2: Validity of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income:
The Revenue contended that the penalty was justified due to inaccurate particulars furnished by the society regarding the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii). However, the High Court disagreed, emphasizing that the society's claim was made in good faith and based on reasonable interpretations of the law. It cited the Cement Marketing Co. of India case, where the Supreme Court held that a bonafide belief in non-liability for a particular item does not warrant penalty imposition. The Court found no evidence of fraudulent intent or concealment of facts by the society, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of bonafide claims and the disclosure of all income particulars in determining the applicability of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no legal question warranted its determination in the case, given the bonafide nature of the society's claim and full disclosure of income particulars.