2015 (10) TMI 1482 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee has concealed income by setting off interest against expenditure - CIT(A) delted the penalty - Held that - Similar to the facts of the case before the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Mushashi Autoparts India P.Ltd. (2010 (12) TMI 106 - Delhi High Court) and therefore held that there was no filing of inaccurate particulars of income and there was no concealment of income on the part of the assessee. We also find that the action of the Assessing Officer in not allowing set off of interest subsidy against the expenditure incurred by the assessee before commencement of business is only a mere change of opinion and there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. In the case of CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1998 (12) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court) the Hon ble Supreme Court referring to the decision of Chellapalli Sugars Ltd. Vs. CIT (1974 (10) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court) held that if the assessee receives any amounts which are inextricably linked with the process of setting up of its plant and machinery such receipts will go to reduce the cost of its assets and these receipts are of the capital nature and cannot be taxed as income. In the circumstances, we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2008-09.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The case involved the assessee receiving a subsidy from the Government for setting up a textile processing center and earning interest on the subsidy amount. The assessee claimed set off of interest against the expenditure incurred before commencing business. The Assessing Officer assessed the interest income separately without allowing the set off. The penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer, who held that the assessee concealed income by setting off interest against expenditure. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty after considering the judicial pronouncements and case laws cited by the assessee.

The Departmental Representative argued that the interest income earned before commencing business should be treated as income from other sources and that there was concealment of income. On the other hand, the counsel for the assessee contended that there was no concealment of income and the claim was based on legal precedents. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that there was no filing of inaccurate particulars of income and referred to relevant case laws to support the decision.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the penalty. It was noted that the Assessing Officer's decision to disallow the set off was merely a change of opinion and not indicative of concealment of income. The Tribunal cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case to support the conclusion that receipts linked to setting up of assets are of capital nature and cannot be taxed as income. Therefore, the penalty was not justified, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of considering the specific circumstances of the case, relevant legal precedents, and the nature of receipts in determining the tax treatment of income earned before commencing business activities.