2015 (12) TMI 828 - HC - Income Tax

Court upholds CIT(A) decision to delete penalty under Income Tax Act. No concealment found; incorrect claim not inaccurate particulars.

The Court upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for wrongly claiming exemption ... Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - wrongly claiming exemption under section 10B in respect of interest not derived as ‘Profits and Gains of Business’ - CIT(A) deleted the penalty - Held that:- We are of the opinion that there can be no gainsaying that the assessee had raised a legal contention which was not finally accepted. When that is the position, then the authoritative judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ) wherein opined that by any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, as relied upon leaves no manner of doubt that the view taken by the CIT and the Tribunal was a correct view. - Decided in favour of assessee Issues:- Penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) for wrongly claiming exemption under section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for interest not derived as 'Profits and Gains of Business'.Analysis:The appeal in question pertains to a judgement regarding penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for wrongly claiming exemption under section 10B for interest income not derived as 'Profits and Gains of Business'. The assessing officer imposed the penalty due to the claim of exemption under section 10B on interest income from fixed deposits, which was deemed ineligible for such claim. The CIT(Appeal) later deleted the penalty, stating that there was no concealment of income, and the discrepancy was merely related to the treatment of interest income for deduction under section 10B. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, leading to the revenue's appeal.During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel argued that the interest income should not have been the basis for claiming benefits under section 10B, as it was not legally receivable, resulting in tax avoidance. On the other hand, the respondent's Senior Advocate contended that no inaccurate particulars were provided, and the interest income was disclosed by the assessee, who believed it was eligible for section 10B benefits. Reference was made to the Supreme Court's judgement in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that making an incorrect legal claim does not equate to furnishing inaccurate particulars.After considering the arguments, the Court noted that the assessee had raised a legal contention that was not conclusively accepted. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Reliance Petroproducts, the Court affirmed that the views of the CIT and the Tribunal were justified. Consequently, the question posed by the revenue was answered in favor of the assessee, leading to the admission and disposal of the appeal.