2012 (10) TMI 252 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - provisions of section 36(viia) as claimed were not applicable to assessee s case - Held that - No dispute that the provisions of section 36(viia) were not applicable to assessee s case as the primary cooperative agricultural development bank is explicitly excluded from claiming deduction on account of provisions for NPA but as it is seen that the assessee has contended that the provisions for NPA was made as per RBI guidelines in respect of which it has become sub-standard/bad and doubtful. The NPA provision was checked and verified by the auditor before finalizing the balance sheet. It is also seen that non performing assets are classified and quantified as per guidelines of RBI by the banks in respect of cases where recovery becomes difficult. Hence, the provision for NPA is integral part of the business of banking wherein such provision more or less corresponds to the bad debts. It is also true that the assessee, being a co-operative bank is eligible to claim deduction of its entire income from the business of banking u/s 80P. Keeping in view the above facts it could be safely held that there was not a deliberate attempt to claim deduction of provision for NPA. As decided in CIT Versus RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS FVT. LTD. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT a mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Thus as the revenue was unable to show that the assessee had intentionally not furnished correct particulars no penalty can be levied - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Delay in refiling the appeal
- Substantial question of law regarding inaccurate particulars of income
- Claim of deduction for NPA provision under Section 36(viia) of the Income Tax Act
- Cancellation of penalty by the CIT(A) and Tribunal
- Legal position based on Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd.
- Bonafide mistake leading to wrong claim of deduction
- Applicability of Section 80P of the Act to the income of the assessee
- Comparison with the case of CIT Vs. The Shahabad Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd.

Delay in Refiling the Appeal:
The judgment starts by condoning the delay in refiling the appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Substantial Question of Law Regarding Inaccurate Particulars of Income:
The main issue in the appeal was whether the assessee's claim of wrong/inadmissible expenditure was a bonafide mistake with no intention of increasing its loss, and if such claim amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee.

Claim of Deduction for NPA Provision:
The assessee had claimed expenses for NPA provision under Section 36(viia) of the Act, which the Assessing Officer disallowed, leading to penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Cancellation of Penalty by the CIT(A) and Tribunal:
The CIT(A) and Tribunal cancelled the penalty imposed on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, stating that there was no intentional furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the claim was due to a bonafide mistake.

Legal Position Based on Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd.:
The judgment refers to the legal position established in the case of Reliance Petro Products, where the Supreme Court held that a mere claim that is ultimately found to be unsustainable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding income.

Bonafide Mistake Leading to Wrong Claim of Deduction:
The Tribunal found that the claim made by the assessee for NPA provision was a bonafide mistake, as it was not legally admissible, but there was no deliberate attempt to claim the deduction incorrectly.

Applicability of Section 80P of the Act to the Income of the Assessee:
It was noted that the income of the assessee was exempt under Section 80P of the Act, and even after disallowing the claimed expense, the balance remained a negative figure, indicating no intentional evasion.

Comparison with the Case of CIT Vs. The Shahabad Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd.:
The judgment also cited the case of The Shahabad Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd., where it was concluded that making a wrong claim under specific sections does not equate to concealment or providing inaccurate information to invoke penalty under the Act.

In conclusion, the appeal by the revenue was dismissed as the Tribunal found no deliberate attempt by the assessee to furnish incorrect particulars, and the claim was considered a bonafide mistake, aligning with the legal principles established in relevant case laws.