2011 (2) TMI 434 - HC - Income Tax

High Court Upholds Tribunal's Decision on Tax Penalty Appeal

Commissioner of Income-tax Versus HB. Leasing and Finance Co. Ltd.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as no question of law arose based on the Tribunal's findings. The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was upheld ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)Addition - Claim of deduction u/s 80M - The intercorporate dividend was not actually distributed - The Assessing Officer found that though the aforesaid amount was earmarked and deposited in a separate account, unless the amount was actually distributed, the assessee was not entitled to deductions thereof - the Tribunal has opined that it was a debatable issue. - Penalty not to be imopsed.share transfer expenditure - Club expenses - the Tribunal has recorded that this disallowance was made as the Assessing Officer suspected the same to be expenses relating to the share capital increase and on that count held it to be capital in nature - However, it was not disputed that the expenditure was incurred in fact - Likewise, in respect of the club expenses, the observation of the Tribunal is that the claim, which was for a paltry amount of Rs. 11,359, was not mala fide - No question of law arises - No penalty. Issues:1. Addition of intercorporate dividend under section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 19612. Disallowance of share transfer expenses as capital in nature3. Disallowance of club expenses4. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the ActAnalysis:1. Intercorporate Dividend under Section 80M:The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the intercorporate dividend was not actually distributed. The Assessing Officer relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab Distilling Industries Limited v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 1 (SC) to support the disallowance. However, the Tribunal found the issue debatable, considering that the amount earmarked for distribution was kept aside in a separate bank account. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had deleted the additions, indicating a debatable issue. The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was upheld, as the issue was considered to involve a substantial question of law.2. Disallowance of Share Transfer Expenses:Another addition was made on account of share transfer expenses, which were disallowed by the Assessing Officer as capital in nature. The Tribunal observed that although the expenses were suspected to be related to share capital increase, it was not disputed that the expenditure was actually incurred. The Tribunal did not find any mala fide intention behind the claim for disallowance of share transfer expenses.3. Disallowance of Club Expenses:The club expenses claimed by the assessee were disallowed, and additions were made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the claim for a small amount of Rs. 11,359 was not mala fide, indicating that there was no wrongful intent behind the claim for club expenses.4. Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act:The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,47,00,051 on the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the penalty in appeal. The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was based on the debatable nature of the issues involved, especially regarding the deduction under section 80M of the Act.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no question of law arose based on the Tribunal's findings and the debatable nature of the issues involved in the assessment.