ASST CIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. SVG FASHIONS LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3250/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 March 2016AY 2007-084 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 agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee's claim for deduction was bonafide and contentious. Since the quantum appeal had already established the subsidy as capital in nature, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars warranting penalty.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was for disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB on interest subsidy, which the Assessing Officer considered not derived from the industrial undertaking.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the assessee's claim, though rejected, was bonafide and the underlying issue was contentious.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 80IB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

Hearing: 03.02.2016Pronounced: 02.03.2016

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-8, Mumbai dated 22.2.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the penalty was levied for the disallowance made u/s. 80IB of the Act in respect of interest subsidy received under TUFF Subsidy Scheme. In the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer disallowed deduction u/s. 80IB on this interest subsidy holding that this income is not derived from industrial undertaking for the purpose of computing relief u/s. 80IB of the Act.

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the Tribunal in dated 23.12.2015 in quantum appeal by considering various case laws, held that the interest subsidy received by the assessee is capital in nature. The Ld. Counsel submits that it was the bonafide claim of the assessee that interest subsidy is Revenue receipt and therefore eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. However, the claim of the assessee is rejected by the authorities holding that it is a capital receipt not eligible for tax thus he submits that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income warranting any levy of penalty. He further submits that since the quantum appeal has been held that the receipt is only capital receipt there is no tax payable, the levy of penalty is not justified.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative supports the orders of the lower authorities.

5.

We have perused the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee in quantum appeal where the Tribunal held that the subsidy received is in the nature of capital receipt, while coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal analysed various case laws in the issue. We also find that the claim of the assessee deduction u/s. 80IB on interest subsidy is a bonafide claim and we do not see any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income attracting levy of penalty. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty observing as under:

“ In the case of CIT Vs Arisudana Spinning Mills Ltd (2010) 326 ITR 429 (P&H), Hon’ble High Court held that finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse or against the material available on the record. When the returns of income were filed the issue with regard to entitlement of deduction u/s. 80IA on the profits derived from trading turnover i.e. trading in the raw wool and knitted cloth, was debatable, and this issue was settled with the judgment of Court in Liberty India Vs CIT (207) 207 CTR (P&H) 243 which has beed upheld by the Supreme Court in Liberty India Vs C IT (2009) 225 ctr (sc) 23. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the assessee did not deliberately or consciously concealed the true particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The judgement cited by the appellant is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the penalty has been deleted on the basis of aforesaid finding of fact. In view of the aforesaid finding of fact, no substantial question of law is arising out of the order of the Tribunal.

In view of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the matter being highly contentious and the AO found nothing except rejecting the legal claim made by the appellant which according to it was allowable to it. In fact the said contention of the appellant was held admissible by the various courts as indicated by the appellant in its submissions. Therefore, in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT VS Reliance Petroproducts the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not exigeble in this case. The same is accordingly deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.”

6. We agree with the conclusions drawn by the Ld. CIT(A) that there is no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as the claim of the assessee is highly contentious and bonafide, thus we sustain the order of the Ld. CIT(A) by deleting the penalty.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd March, 2016.

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 →