2018 (3) TMI 50 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT upholds deletion of penalty for deduction claim under Section 80IC

ACIT, Central Circle-20, Mumbai Versus M/s. Ankur Drugs And Pharma Ltd.

ACIT, Central Circle-20, Mumbai Versus M/s. Ankur Drugs And Pharma Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for claiming deduction under Section 80IC.2. Determination of whether the assessee made a bona fide claim for deduction under Section 80IC.3. Examination of the legal precedents and their applicability to the facts of the case.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Penalty Imposed Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The primary issue revolves around whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly imposed for the assessee's claim of deduction under Section 80IC. The Assessing Officer (AO) imposed the penalty on the grounds that the assessee made a false claim of deduction under Section 80IC, asserting that the manufacturing unit at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, was not operational and all manufacturing activities were outsourced to Vaibhav Healthcare Private Limited. The AO concluded that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income.2. Determination of Whether the Assessee Made a Bona Fide Claim for Deduction Under Section 80IC:The assessee contended that the claim for deduction under Section 80IC was made based on a bona fide belief and advice from its Chartered Accountant, supported by an audit report and several judicial precedents. The assessee argued that the manufacturing activities were conducted under its supervision and control at Vaibhav Healthcare Private Limited's unit, which was eligible for deduction under Section 80IC. The CIT(A) accepted this explanation, noting that the assessee had disclosed all relevant details and documents, including the audit report and manufacturing agreement, and had not concealed any particulars of income.3. Examination of the Legal Precedents and Their Applicability to the Facts of the Case:The assessee relied on multiple judicial precedents to substantiate its claim for deduction under Section 80IC, including:- Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Penwalt India Limited (196 ITR 813): The court held that an assessee engaged in part of the manufacturing activity and outsourcing the rest could still qualify for relief.- Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Neo Pharma P. Ltd. (137 ITR 879): The court held that even if the plant and machinery belonged to another company, the manufacturing activity could be attributed to the assessee if conducted under its supervision and control.- Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Anglo French Drug Co. (Eastern) Ltd. (191 ITR 92): The court held that it is not necessary for the manufacturing company to own the plant and machinery if it supervises and controls the manufacturing process.The CIT(A) found that the assessee had made a bona fide claim based on these precedents and advice from its Chartered Accountant. The CIT(A) concluded that the mere disallowance of the claim by the AO did not automatically lead to the imposition of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c).Tribunal's Decision:The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). The ITAT concluded that the assessee had made a bona fide claim for deduction under Section 80IC, supported by legal precedents and professional advice. The ITAT emphasized that the making of a legal claim, which does not find favor with the Revenue, does not automatically entail the levy of a penalty unless it is shown that the claim was ex-facie wrong or made with an intent to defraud the Revenue. The ITAT found that the assessee had disclosed all relevant details and documents, and there was no concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.Conclusion:The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted. The ITAT confirmed that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IC was made in a bona fide manner, based on legal precedents and professional advice, and the mere disallowance of the claim did not warrant the imposition of a penalty.