2015 (2) TMI 994 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal Upheld Penalty for R&D Expense Disallowance Without Evidence

M/s. Clariant Chemicals India Limited Versus ACIT, 1(1)

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to impose a penalty on disallowance of capital expenditure for Research and Development due to the ... Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - disallowance of capital expenditure of Research and Development - whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the imposition of penalty pertaining to addition of Research and Development expenditure? - Held that:- In the present case at all stages, whether in Quantum Proceedings or Penalty Proceedings the materials were the bills which were required to be produced. It was not the case of the Assessee that these have been destroyed or lost. The claim was that there was other material. However, it has been concurrently found that the bills have not been produced. In these circumstances, the expenses were disallowed and the penalty was imposed. That was on the satisfaction that the Assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars. The facts material to the computation were, therefore, not produced and in relation to such an act on the part of the Assessee, it is open for the authorities to take assistance of section 271(1)(c) read with explanation 1(B). This was a case where the explanation gave was not sustained. The genuineness of the claim itself was in issue and in our opinion the Tribunal while upholding the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and that of the Assessing Officer partially did not act perversely nor committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record. No substantial question of law - Decided against assessee. Issues:Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding disallowance of capital expenditure for Research and Development and imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c).Analysis:The appellant challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) before the Tribunal, focusing on the disallowance of capital expenditure for Research and Development and the subsequent penalty under section 271(1)(c). The appellant argued that the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the penalty, emphasizing that the expenditure was indeed incurred and supported by auditors' reports and statutory books. The appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to consider relevant material, leading to an unjust penalty imposition. Additionally, the appellant suggested that even if the deduction claimed could not be substantiated fully, the presumption under section 271(1)(c) had been rebutted with overwhelming evidence on record.The respondent, representing the Revenue, countered the appellant's arguments by stating that no substantial question of law was raised in the Appeal. The respondent highlighted that the deductions were based on expenses incurred, but the Assessee failed to produce relevant documents for certain items during assessment proceedings. The respondent argued that the findings of fact were consistent with the material on record and not vitiated by any legal error, therefore warranting dismissal of the Appeal.Upon reviewing the case, the High Court found that the Tribunal had upheld the penalty on disallowance of capital expenditure for Research and Development, citing the Assessee's failure to provide necessary evidence despite multiple opportunities. The Court referenced judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court to support its decision. The Court noted that the Assessee's reliance on other materials, such as auditors' reports, was not sufficient when the primary evidence, i.e., bills, was not produced. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to impose a penalty, reducing it to a specific amount based on the available evidence.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Appeal, ruling that no substantial question of law was raised. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision on penalty imposition, emphasizing the importance of providing accurate particulars and primary evidence to substantiate claims, as required by section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court clarified that the findings were based on the Assessee's failure to produce essential documents, leading to the penalty imposition upheld by the Tribunal.