2015 (9) TMI 1360 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - disallowance under Section 80IB was made by the Assessing Officer not because of any difference of opinion but because such deduction was not available to the assessee by virtue of specific provision of law - ITAT deleted the penalty - Held that - The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal had concurrently concluded that the assessee in the computation of income while claiming deduction under Section 80IB of the Act had disclosed complete facts. The assessee had claimed permanent registration as small scale unit by District Industries Centre, Patiala. The books of account of the assessee were duly audited. The claim made by the assessee was under bonafide belief that it was a small scale industry. The error on the part of the assessee had occurred due to various notifications issued by the concerned Ministry from time to time fixing the limit of investment to qualify for being small scale industry. The value of exclusive plant and machinery as on 1.4.2004 was ₹ 2.93 crores and because of the addition made in the assessment year under appeal of ₹ 58.33 lacs, the total investment came to ₹ 3.51 crores. In such circumstances, it could not be said that the assessee had not made a bonafide claim of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. Therefore, the penalty was rightly deleted by CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal. We do not find any error in the approach adopted by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the ITAT was legally justified in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) without appreciating the disallowance under Section 80IB.
2. Whether the findings by ITAT were based on misreading and misinterpretation of facts.
3. Whether the ITAT committed an error in arriving at the conclusion.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant revenue challenged the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) by the ITAT. The assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, but the Assessing Officer disallowed it as the investment in plant and machinery exceeded the limit for a small scale industry. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, stating that the claim was made in good faith based on Ministry of Industry notifications. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the assessee disclosed all material facts and made a bonafide claim, hence no concealment or inaccurate particulars were found. The penalty was rightfully deleted, as concluded by both CIT(A) and the Tribunal.

Issue 2:
The revenue contended that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal misinterpreted facts, as the investment in plant and machinery exceeded the small scale industry limit. However, both authorities found that the claim was made in good faith, considering the changing notifications by the Ministry of Industry. The Tribunal affirmed that the assessee disclosed complete facts and qualified for the deduction under Section 80IB. The appeal was dismissed, as no error was found in the approach taken by CIT(A) and the Tribunal.

Issue 3:
The revenue argued that the penalty was rightly imposed due to concealment of income, but the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the claim was made sincerely based on available information. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee's claim was supported by auditor qualification and relevant notifications. The penalty deletion was upheld, emphasizing the bonafide belief of the assessee and the disclosure of all material facts. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose from the case.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) as the claim for deduction under Section 80IB was made in good faith based on the notifications by the Ministry of Industry, and all material facts were disclosed by the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the revenue.