2016 (3) TMI 580 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of deduction u/s 80HHC for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - Held that - The issue in controversy is covered by the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Caplin Point Laboratories Limited (2007 (6) TMI 38 - HIGH COURT, MADRAS ), wherein the Hon ble Madras High Court has held that mere rejection of claim of assessee u/s 80HHC by relying on different interpretation did not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. We, respectfully following the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court (supra), delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for disallowance of deduction under section 80HHC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Facts:
The appellant, a Private Limited Company engaged in the agro-based industry, filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2002-03, showing income under section 115JB. The Assessing Officer re-opened the case under section 147 and disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80HHC, leading to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

2. Arguments by Authorized Representative:
The Authorized Representative argued that penalty should not be levied merely based on a disallowance in quantum proceedings. The dispute arose from the interpretation of whether certain receipts were eligible for deduction under section 80HHC. The Representative emphasized that the items in question were business-related income and were included in the total business income. The claim was certified by a Chartered Accountant, and the appellant believed it was entitled to the deduction.

3. Legal Precedents and Arguments:
The Authorized Representative cited various legal precedents, including decisions from the Madras High Court and Mumbai Bench, supporting the position that a mere rejection of a claim does not constitute concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Representative contended that the penalty was imposed in a mechanical and routine manner without proper consideration of the legal aspects.

4. Decision of the Tribunal:
After considering the contentions of both parties, the Tribunal referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in a similar case and held that the rejection of the claim under section 80HHC did not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted, ruling in favor of the appellant.

5. Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing that the rejection of the claim for deduction under section 80HHC did not warrant the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c). The decision was based on legal precedents and the interpretation of the facts and circumstances of the case, ultimately leading to the cancellation of the penalty.

This detailed analysis highlights the key aspects of the judgment, including the factual background, legal arguments presented, relevant precedents cited, and the final decision of the Tribunal in favor of the appellant.