2019 (3) TMI 129 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Deduction u/s 80IC - 8th year on account of substantial expansion to the undertaking - entitlement to 100% claim - bonafide belief - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on account of wrongful claim of deduction - HELD THAT - Relying upon the decision rendered by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in M/s Stovekraft India s case (2017 (12) TMI 69 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT), it was recorded by the Tribunal that under the provisions of the Act, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IC of the Act on account of substantial expansion of the unit. Even otherwise, this was not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. Revenue has not been able to point out any error or illegality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the claim of deduction @ 100% for the year under consideration by the assessee was on account of bonafide belief of the assessee and not on account of furnishing of any inaccurate particular or concealment of income, thus, warranting interference by this Court - decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for deduction claims.
2. Penalty imposition under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate income particulars.
3. Bonafide belief in claiming deductions and its impact on penalty imposition.

Issue 1: The appellant-revenue challenged the ITAT's decision regarding the interpretation of Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for deduction claims. The respondent-assessee claimed a deduction at 100% instead of 25% for the 8th year due to substantial expansion. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, leading to penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) and Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, citing a bonafide belief in the claim. The Tribunal referred to a Himachal Pradesh High Court decision supporting the deduction for substantial expansion. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the bonafide belief behind the claim.

Issue 2: The penalty imposition under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate income particulars was a key concern. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty on the respondent-assessee for claiming a 100% deduction under Section 80IC. However, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty, stating it was not a case of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The Tribunal upheld this decision, highlighting the bonafide belief of the assessee in making the claim. The High Court concurred, noting that the claim was made under a bonafide belief and not to provide inaccurate particulars or conceal income.

Issue 3: The impact of bonafide belief in claiming deductions on penalty imposition was crucial. The Tribunal and High Court emphasized that the assessee's claim was based on a bonafide belief, supported by a Himachal Pradesh High Court decision. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as there was no evidence of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income. The High Court dismissed the appeals by the appellant-revenue, stating that no substantial question of law arose. The bonafide belief of the assessee in claiming the deduction played a significant role in the penalty imposition decision.