2014 (9) TMI 5 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Inaccurate particulars furnished or not Claim of deduction u/s 10A Held that - As decided in assessee s own case, it has been held that there was no material brought forward to prove that the assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income nor had it found that there was any concealment on the part of the assessee - the additions were sustained particularly in the quantum appeal by disallowing the expenditure on interpretation of the provisions of law and the part of this amount had been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration the order of the Tribunal is upheld Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2000-01.

Detailed analysis:
1. The appellant-Revenue challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which confirmed the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) for A.Y. 2000-01. The appellant contended that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming an inadmissible deduction under Section 10A of the Act.
2. The AO disallowed a certain amount on the assessee's claim under Section 10A, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Subsequently, the AO levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on the disallowed amount. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the penalty. The ITAT dismissed the appellant-Revenue's appeal, citing a previous decision for the A.Y. 2001-02 involving a similar issue.
3. The appellant-Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in upholding the deletion of the penalty without appreciating the inaccurate particulars furnished by the assessee. However, the appellant's counsel acknowledged a prior dismissal of a similar appeal by the High Court in the case of the same assessee for A.Y. 2001-02.
4. The Division Bench of the High Court had previously upheld the ITAT's decision to delete the penalty for A.Y. 2001-02, stating that there was no proof of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income by the assessee. Considering this precedent, the High Court concluded that the ITAT did not err in dismissing the current appeal against the deletion of penalty for A.Y. 2000-01.
5. Ultimately, the High Court found no substantial question of law in the present appeal and dismissed it, emphasizing that the decision was in line with the previous judgment for A.Y. 2001-02. The High Court ruled that the appellant's appeal against the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for the relevant assessment year was not justified.