2021 (8) TMI 954 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - claim of deduction u/s 10A denied - HELD THAT - Levy of penalty in this case is unsustainable because mere preferring a claim which is unacceptable to the Revenue does not ipso facto lead to levy of penalty. Here in this case, Form No. 56F duly signed by the Chartered Accountant justifies the plea of bona fide belief on the part of the assessee. It is not the allegation against the assessee that any material fact relating to the income had to be unearthed with any efforts of the Revenue. It is only on the basis of the material furnished by the assessee, claim of the assessee for benefit u/s. 10A of the Act in respect of 31 units as independent, was rejected. Every disallowance does not lead to penalty, and more particularly such disallowances in relation to the issues which are debatable, in respect of which, the substantial questions of law are admitted by the Hon'ble High Court, are immune from penalty proceedings. With this view of the matter, we do not find any justification to sustain the penalty and consequently, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the same. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Deduction claims under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Bona fide belief and filing of inaccurate particulars.
4. Debatable issues and penalty imposition.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Penalty Levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue revolves around whether the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars is justified. The assessee argued that no satisfaction for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. The Tribunal, referencing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. and Dilip N. Shroff, emphasized that merely making an incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty is not automatic and requires the Assessing Officer to prove that the assessee's explanation was not bona fide and that all material facts were not disclosed.

2. Deduction Claims under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee initially claimed deductions under section 10A for 13 mother licenses but later revised the return to include 31 independent undertakings. The Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the Tribunal rejected this revised claim. The Tribunal noted that the claim was supported by Form 56F, duly signed by a Chartered Accountant, indicating a bona fide belief. The Tribunal held that the rejection of the claim does not imply concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, especially when the claim is based on a bona fide belief and supported by proper documentation.

3. Bona Fide Belief and Filing of Inaccurate Particulars:
The Tribunal emphasized that for a penalty under section 271(1)(c) to be imposed, there must be a deliberate act of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The Tribunal cited the decision in Zoom Communication (P) Ltd., stating that if the factual information given by the assessee is not found to be incorrect, the penalty cannot be levied. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's claim, although ultimately rejected, was made in good faith with supporting documentation, and thus, the penalty was not justified.

4. Debatable Issues and Penalty Imposition:
The Tribunal observed that the issues in this case were debatable, as evidenced by the Hon'ble High Court admitting the substantial question of law regarding the assessee's claim under section 10A. The Tribunal referenced decisions in PCIT vs. Harsh International (P) Ltd., CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, and CIT vs. Rahul Mehta, which support the view that no penalty should be levied on debatable issues or where two views are possible. The Tribunal concluded that since the substantial question of law was admitted by the High Court, the issue was debatable, and thus, the penalty was not sustainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the assessee's claim was based on a bona fide belief and supported by proper documentation. The issues were debatable, and the mere disallowance of the claim did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

← Previous Next →