ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT), CIRCLE-1, PUNE vs. FAURECIA SYSTEMS D'ECHAPPEMENT, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 307/PUN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 July 2022AY 2014-154 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty. It noted that a penalty on identical grounds for a prior assessment year had also been deleted, and the Revenue's appeal for that year was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 9.85 crore as royalty for software maintenance charges to the assessee's income. Subsequently, the AO imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on this addition. The CIT(A) deleted this penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for the addition of software maintenance charges as royalty was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Chaugule
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) -13, Pune on 12-04-2021 in relation to the A.Y. 2014-15 2. The only issue raised in this appeal is against the deletion of penalty of Rs.98,59,279/- imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’)

M/s. Faurecia Systems D’echappement

3.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a tax resident of France. Return was filed declaring total income at Rs.4.94 crore. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that a sum of Rs.19.98 crore was not offered for taxation. Treating such amount as Royalty, the AO included the same in the total income in the draft order. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) held that the amount of Rs.9.85 crore in relation to the Software Maintenance charges was taxable as royalty. The remaining amount was held to be not chargeable. The AO included such amount in the final assessment order as royalty.

1.

Thereafter, the AO imposed penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act with reference to this addition which came to be deleted in the first appeal.

4.

We have heard both the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen as an admitted position that the AO imposed penalty on identical ground for the A.Y. 2013-14, which got deleted in the first appeal. The Revenue preferred appeals for both the years, which were clubbed and taken up for hearing in a combined manner. The rival parties made elaborate submissions in the appeal for the A.Y. 2013-14 and adopted such arguments for the instant appeal. We have passed a M/s. Faurecia Systems D’echappement separate order for the A.Y. 2013-14 upholding the deletion of the penalty. Following the same reasons, we uphold the impugned order insofar as its conclusion for the deletion of penalty is concerned.

5.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12th July, 2022.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →