2010 (9) TMI 195 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty (u/s 271(1) (c)) - deduction claimed u/s 80IB on export incentives - furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee - Held that - mens rea is not an essential ingredient for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act - identical appeal of the revenue being I.T.A. No.225 of 2010 CIT v. M/s Raj Overseas has been dismissed - Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) on deduction claimed under section 80IB on export incentives.
2. Justification of the decision to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) in light of the Supreme Court's decision regarding non-allowability of 80IB deduction on export incentives.
3. Examination of mens rea as an essential ingredient for the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) in the context of loss to revenue due to incorrect claim of deduction under section 80IB.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, challenging the deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the deduction claimed under section 80IB on export incentives. The Tribunal had ruled that there was no deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee, considering the availability of the Supreme Court's decision disallowing such claims at the time of filing the return for the assessment year 2002-03. The issue revolved around whether the assessee deliberately provided inaccurate particulars, justifying the penalty imposition. The Court dismissed the appeal, citing a similar decision in another case.

2. The second issue pertained to the justification of deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) in light of the Supreme Court's decision reaffirming the non-allowability of 80IB deduction on export incentives. The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was questioned in reference to the Supreme Court's ruling in Liberty India Vs. CIT. The Court did not provide a detailed analysis but dismissed the appeal based on a previous similar case.

3. The third issue involved the examination of mens rea as an essential element for the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) in the context of revenue loss due to the incorrect claim of deduction under section 80IB. The Tribunal had quashed the penalty order citing the absence of deliberate concealment, which was challenged based on the Supreme Court's decision in Dharmendra Textile Processors case. The Court did not delve into the mens rea aspect but dismissed the appeal in line with the previous dismissal of a similar case, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the penalty as a remedy for revenue loss.