2015 (7) TMI 952 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty under Section 271(1) - ITAT deleted penalty - Held that - AO initiated penalty proceedings in respect of the addition made and confirmed it. The CIT (Appeals) was of the opinion that in the given circumstances of the case since the appellant upon receipt of notice filed a revised return that circumstance weighed predominantly AO to impose penalty. The CIT(A) consequently set aside the penalty; the revenue s grievance that this score was rejected by ITAT. We considered the circumstance of the case. It is quite evident from the materials on record that the AO was considerably swayed by the revised return and the figures disclosed therein. The CIT(A) correctly understood the law in the light of the decision of Supreme Court in CIT V. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT and directed the revocation of penalty. The ITAT affirmed the decision. Being factual in nature and disclosing no apparent loss or perversity, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of canceling penalty assessed under Section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Consideration of revised return in penalty imposition.
3. Interpretation of law based on Supreme Court decision in CIT V. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the revenue's grievance regarding the cancellation of a penalty assessed under Section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act. The case involved a private real estate development company for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10, where an addition was made on account of the application of the percentage completion method. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings, which were confirmed. However, the CIT (Appeals) set aside the penalty considering the circumstances, especially the filing of a revised return upon receiving notice. The High Court noted that the AO was influenced by the revised return and the figures disclosed therein. The CIT(A) correctly applied the law based on the Supreme Court decision in CIT V. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158, leading to the revocation of the penalty. The ITAT upheld this decision, emphasizing the factual nature of the case without apparent loss or perversity. Consequently, the High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal.

2. The High Court's analysis focused on the consideration of the revised return in penalty imposition. It was observed that the AO heavily relied on the revised return and the disclosed figures, leading to the initiation of penalty proceedings. The CIT(A) recognized the significance of the revised return in the circumstances of the case, ultimately setting aside the penalty. This decision was supported by the ITAT, highlighting the importance of factual considerations and the absence of any apparent loss or perversity. The High Court, in line with these findings, concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it accordingly.

3. Lastly, the High Court delved into the interpretation of the law based on the Supreme Court decision in CIT V. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158. The court noted that the CIT(A) correctly applied the legal principles derived from this authoritative decision, which played a crucial role in directing the revocation of the penalty. The ITAT's affirmation of this approach further solidified the legal foundation of the case. Given the factual nature of the circumstances and the adherence to established legal precedents, the High Court found no substantial question of law warranting a different outcome. Consequently, the appeal was deemed bereft of merit and dismissed by the court.