2016 (4) TMI 212 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds penalty for gratuity provision, partly allows appeal. Decision on 31st March, 2016.

M/s. Jindal Steel Power Ltd. Versus ACIT, Hisar

M/s. Jindal Steel Power Ltd. Versus ACIT, Hisar - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Penalty on addition of Rs. 81.59 crores on account of sales tax incentive/subsidy.3. Penalty on addition of Rs. 88,00,001/- on account of provision for gratuity.4. Penalty on addition of Rs. 49,41,849/- on account of provision for gratuity under section 40A(7) of the Act.5. Penalty on disallowance of Rs. 5,91,106/- on account of additional depreciation claimed under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(c):The appellant contended that the penalty order was passed in undue haste without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and without independent application of mind. The Tribunal noted that there is no bar in law to await the decision of quantum appeal to levy the penalty. The judgments cited by the appellant did not support the proposition that the penalty order was invalid due to the timing of its issuance. The Tribunal dismissed the grounds 1 to 1.3, agreeing with the lower authorities that the penalty order was validly passed.2. Penalty on Addition of Rs. 81.59 Crores on Account of Sales Tax Incentive/Subsidy:The appellant argued that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable and that appropriate disclosures were made in the financial statements. The Tribunal found that the issue of taxability of sales tax incentive/subsidy is a highly debatable legal issue, as evidenced by the admission of appeals on this issue by the High Court. The Tribunal referenced the judgments of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. and CIT v. HB Leasing and Finance Co. Ltd., which held that no penalty is leviable on debatable issues. The Tribunal concluded that no penalty for concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the issue of sales tax subsidy was warranted and allowed the relevant grounds of appeal.3. Penalty on Addition of Rs. 88,00,001/- on Account of Provision for Gratuity:The appellant claimed that the omission to add back the reversal of provision for gratuity was a bonafide mistake. The Tribunal noted that the mistake was detected only in the revision proceedings under section 263 and was not voluntarily disclosed by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the mistake was not bonafide and upheld the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds No. 3 to 3.2 of the appeal were dismissed.4. Penalty on Addition of Rs. 49,41,849/- on Account of Provision for Gratuity Under Section 40A(7):The Tribunal noted that the addition of Rs. 49,41,849/- on account of provision for gratuity was already added back in the computation of income, and the penalty was imposed erroneously. The Tribunal deleted the addition and consequently, the penalty levied on this sum. The grounds No. 4 to 4.2 of the appeal were allowed.5. Penalty on Disallowance of Rs. 5,91,106/- on Account of Additional Depreciation Claimed Under Section 32(1)(iia):The appellant argued that the additional depreciation was claimed based on tax audit report and was duly disclosed in the financial statements. The Tribunal found that adequate and necessary disclosures were made by the appellant in accordance with law. The Tribunal referenced the judgments of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Rubber Udyog Vikas (P) Ltd., which held that no penalty is leviable for incorrect claims made on a bonafide basis. The Tribunal concluded that no penalty was warranted for the disallowance of additional depreciation and allowed the relevant grounds of appeal.Conclusion:The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the penalty on the addition of Rs. 88,00,001/- on account of provision for gratuity but deleted the penalties on the other contested additions. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 31st March, 2016.