DCIT, C-2, (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S HP STATE REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH CARE SOCIETY, SHIMLA
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the addition on account of grants-in-aid, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been restored back to the Assessing Officer by the ITAT in quantum proceedings, the penalty proceedings had become infructuous.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The penalty was based on additions made by treating grants-in-aid received by the assessee society as its income.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the underlying addition on which it is based has been restored to the Assessing Officer for further verification.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd.330 citing327 ITR 510 · 2010 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1335 to 1337/Chd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2006-07 to 2008-09) The D.C.I.T. Vs. M/s H.P. State Reproductive & Circle-2 (Exemption), Child Health care Society, Chandigarh. Directorate of Services SDA Complex, Kasumpati, Shimla. Himachal Pradesh. PAN: AAATH3148J (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Add.CIT Respondent by : None Date of hearing : 25.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 10.05.2018
ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. :
All the three appeals filed by the Revenue are directed
against the consolidated order of learned Commissioner of
Income Tax(Appeals), Shimla dated 31.3.2017 relating to
assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, deleting
the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
Since common issue is involved in all the appeals
being penalty levied on account of addition made by
treating grants-in-aid received by the assessee as its
income, they were heard together and are being disposed off
by this consolidated order.
For the sake of convenience, we shall be dealing with
the facts in ITA No.1335/Chd/2017 for assessment year
2006-07 and the decision rendered therein will apply
mutatis mutandis to other appeals also.
The facts of the case are that the assessee society is
an autonomous and independent body engaged in
implementation of reproductive and child health program
and other family planning/welfare programs in the State of
Himachal Pradesh and is registered u/s 12A of the Income
Tax Act. For the impugned assessment year the assessee
had claimed its income as exempt under the provisions of
section 11 of the Act. During assessment proceedings the
AO found that the assessee had received grants in aid .
Holding the same to be in the nature of voluntary
contribution and hence the income of the assessee as per
the provisions of sec. 2(24) r/w Section 12 (1) of the Act,
and finding the same to not having been utilized to the
extent of 85%, as stipulated under section 11 of the Act for
the purpose of claiming the entire income as exempt ,the
Assessing Officer subjected to tax the unspent grants in aid
received by the assessee, to the tune of Rs.3,54,46,191/- .
The appeal filed by the assessee against the aforesaid order
was dismissed by the CIT(Appeals).Further appeal was filed
by the assessee before the I.T.A.T., who accepted the
assessees contention that grants in aid received for specific
purposes if unspent and which were to be refunded to the
parent society, were not in the nature of income of the
recipient. But having accepted so, the ITAT restored the
matter back to the AO to verify the actual refund of the
unspent grant to the Government of India on the close of its
projects, directing the AO to make no addition if the same
is proved.
The Assessing Officer passed the consequential
assessment order, giving his findings that the assessee
could not establish that the unutilized grant-in-aid was
refunded to the Govt. of India. Therefore, the Assessing
Officer added back the amount of Rs.3,54,46,191/- again to
the taxable income of the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) upheld
the order of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer
subsequently proceeded to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
amounting to Rs.1,19,31,188/-vide order dated 28.03.2014.
The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the
Ld.CIT(Appeals) who deleted the penalty levied, holding that
the assessee had furnished all particulars of his income vis-
à-vis grant-in-aid and the income had been brought to tax
merely because the assessee’s contention of claiming
exemption of the same u/s 11 was not accepted by the
Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has come up in
appeal before us, raising following grounds:
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the penalty even after upholding the action of the AO of treating the grants-in-aid received by the assessee from the Government as voluntary contribution and hence taxable as income u/s 2(24) of the Act which the assessee failed to show as its income and also failed to utilize it fully as per the required provisions.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law while relying upon the apex court's judgment in Reliance Products without elaborating as to how the judgment is applicable to the facts of the case. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not following the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Zoom Communication (P) Ltd (327 ITR 510) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the penalty levied on wrong claim of deduction of income tax payment & expenses claimed under the head 'equipment expenses written off.” 7. During the course of hearing before us, it was brought
to the notice of the Bench that the I.T.A.T., in the second
round of quantum proceedings, had adjudicated the appeals
filed by the assessee vide its consolidated order dated
9.10.2017 in ITA No.337, 338 & 339/Chd/2013 for the
impugned years. Copy of the order was placed before us. It
was pointed out therefrom that the ITAT had again restored
the issue back to the Assessing Officer to verify whether
the grants were tied up grants received for specific
purposes and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with
law. Ld.Counsel for the assessee contended therefore that
since no addition stood as on date on the impugned issue,
no penalty u/s 271(1)© was leviable.
Ld.DR admitted that the issue on which penalty had
been levied, being grants in aid treated as income of the
assessee, had been restored back to the Assessing Officer
by the ITAT vide its aforesaid order.
In view of the above, since the addition made on
account of grants-in-aid, u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on which
penalty has been levied in the present case has been
restored back to the Assessing Officer by the I.T.A.T. in
quantum proceedings, the penalty proceedings become
infructuous.
The appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.1335/Chd/2017
is, therefore, dismissed.
In the result, all the three appeals filed by the
Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court.
Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 10th May, 2018 *Rati* Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. The CIT 5. The DR
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Chandigarh
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026