2010 (3) TMI 996 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules penalties unjustified in tax case, remands deduction disallowance for further review

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee in the case involving the levy of penalties under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment years 2002-03 and ... - Issues Involved:1. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2002-03.2. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2003-04.3. Disallowance of deduction u/s 80-IB in respect of public issue expenses and gratuity for the assessment year 2003-04.Summary:1. Levy of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2002-03:The primary issue was whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 6,82,078/- u/s 271(1)(c) on the claim of depreciation of Rs. 19,10,596/- on power lines not owned by the company. The CIT(Appeals) concluded that the expenditure had to be reduced from reserves and surplus to reflect the company's financial health accurately. The AO relied on the Supreme Court decision in Dharmendra Textile Processors Ltd., 306 ITR 277, treating the levy as a civil liability. The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim for depreciation, though disallowed, did not constitute concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal referenced the Delhi High Court decision in CIT Vs. HMA Udyog (P) Ltd., which held that a debatable issue does not attract penalty proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in sustaining the penalty.2. Levy of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2003-04:The first matter was the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,81,748/- for the claim of depreciation on the power line amounting to Rs. 14,32,925/-. This issue was covered by the Tribunal's order for the assessment year 2002-03, and the penalty was not justified.3. Disallowance of Deduction u/s 80-IB for Assessment Year 2003-04:The second and third issues pertained to the disallowance of deduction u/s 80-IB for public issue expenses of Rs. 42,98,592/- and gratuity of Rs. 7,36,766/-. The matters were restored to the AO's file, and consequential assessment was pending. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not claim the deduction in the original return but made a note for allowance if the income became positive. The CIT(Appeals) found that non-deduction of these expenses would attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c). However, the Tribunal observed discrepancies in the facts presented by the CIT(Appeals) and the penalty order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) to ascertain the facts and decide on the penalty issue.Conclusion:(i) ITA No. 293(Del)/2010 is allowed.(ii) ITA No. 294(Del)/2010 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.The order was pronounced in the open court on 26.03.2010.