2012 (9) TMI 692 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowances of repair expenses on building & 80 IB and 80 HHC - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The A.O. had simply initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) without mentioning whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The building expenses claimed by the assessee were disallowed by the A.O., which were capitalized and depreciation was allowed by the A.O. Deduction u/s 80-IB and 80HHC were claimed in prescribed proforma on the basis of audit report in the return of income. The A.O. recalculated both the deductions according to him but particulars of income and/or concealment of income, has not been brought on record by the A.O., which is an essential ingredient to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c). A s decided in CIT Versus RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS FVT. LTD. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars - deletion of penalty is thus warranted - in favour of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate particulars of income.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the revenue challenged the penalty order for the assessment year 2004-05, specifically focusing on the deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
2. The Assessee, a Public Limited Company, engaged in manufacturing and job work, filed its income tax return with certain deductions under sections 80 HHC and 80 IB. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed factory building repair expenses and deductions, leading to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).
3. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, emphasizing that the Assessee had provided all material information in the return of income, and the disallowances were based on the A.O.'s interpretation of admissibility rather than inaccurate particulars of income.
4. The revenue contested the deletion of the penalty, relying on the A.O.'s order, while the Assessee argued that the penalty was not justified due to the bonafide nature of their claims and compliance with auditing requirements.
5. The Tribunal reviewed the disallowances made by the A.O., including repair expenses, deductions under sections 80-IB and 80HHC, and noted that the A.O. failed to establish any inaccurate particulars of income or concealment, essential for imposing a penalty under section 271(1)(c).
6. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, drawing parallels to the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case, and dismissed the revenue's appeal against the deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c).

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning behind confirming the deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate particulars of income.