2017 (4) TMI 59 - HC - Income Tax

High Court upholds ITAT decision on penalty for assessee, citing legal uncertainty and compliance. No substantial question of law.

The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee, citing uncertainty in legal interpretation and the assessee's ... Penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) - not offering any amount under Section 14A as well as disallowance under first explanation to Section 37 (1) of expenditure in the nature of penalty paid to the Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”) upon a composition - Held that:- As far as the first disallowance under Section 14A is concerned, the reasoning of the CIT (A) (endorsed by the ITAT that the position in law was in a state of flux and the benefit of doubt could be given to the assessee), is sound. With respect to the disallowance under Section 37 (1), here too, we notice that the CIT (A) had granted relief but that order was set aside by the ITAT. Having regard to these peculiar facts, penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) could not have been imposed. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues involved:1. Justification of penalty imposed on the assessee by the Assessing Officer.2. Disallowance under Section 14A and first explanation to Section 37(1) of expenditure paid to the Delhi Development Authority.3. Interpretation of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules.4. Obligation of the assessee to disclose material facts and follow provisions of law.5. Applicability of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in the circumstances of the case.Analysis:1. The Revenue challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) affirming the penalty imposed on the assessee by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue contended that the penalty was justified due to the mandatory obligation on the assessee to disclose material facts and follow legal provisions.2. The penalty was imposed on two counts: non-disclosure under Section 14A and disallowance under the first explanation to Section 37(1) for expenditure paid to the Delhi Development Authority. The CIT (A) deleted the amount under Rule 8D(2) but upheld other additions. Both the CIT (A) and ITAT considered the unsettled legal position regarding Rule 8D and the primary obligation of the assessee under Section 14A.3. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the penalty based on precedents like CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. The ITAT reasoned that the assessee had paid taxes on the disallowance under Section 14A, disclosed all facts in the Tax Audit Report, and did not conceal any information, thereby justifying the penalty deletion.4. The High Court supported the ITAT's decision, emphasizing that the legal position was uncertain, and the benefit of doubt favored the assessee. The Court noted that the CIT (A) had granted relief regarding the disallowance under Section 37(1), which was set aside by the ITAT. Considering these circumstances, the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deemed unwarranted.5. The High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Court's decision was based on the peculiar facts of the case, including the uncertainty in legal interpretation and the relief granted by the CIT (A) regarding the disallowance under Section 37(1).