2009 (10) TMI 154 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) Concealment of Income The assessee is an agricultural society engaged in marketing of sugar by its members. Assessing officer imposed the penalty under section 271(1)(c) by holding that wrong claiming of deduction is concealment of income In this case Haryana High Court held that, . Making of wrong claim is not at par with concealment or giving of inaccurate information, which may call for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.5. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. Decision in favor of assessee against the revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and wrong claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iii).
3. Deletion of penalty in respect of wrong claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) and wrong claim of depreciation on guest house without providing reasons.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Revenue appealed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench "A") under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1995-96. The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the deletion of penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Issue 2:
The assessee, an agricultural society engaged in marketing sugar by its members, had claimed deductions under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) for manufacturing sugar. The claim was rejected as the deduction was available only for marketing agricultural produce, not manufactured articles. Penalties were levied for making wrongful claims to avoid tax. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the penalties, but the Tribunal set them aside, citing no conscious breach of law as required for penalty levy. The Tribunal found no concealment or deliberate withholding of information, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal deleted penalties for wrong claims under section 80P(2)(d) and depreciation on a guest house without providing reasons. The Revenue argued that the wrong claims were not only under section 80P but also under section 80P(2) of the Act. However, the Tribunal did not find any such point raised by the Revenue. The judgment stated that making a wrong claim does not equate to concealment or providing inaccurate information warranting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal's reasoning for setting aside penalties for wrong claims under section 80P was deemed applicable to the wrong claim under the head of depreciation as well.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose in the case.