2018 (5) TMI 898 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Deletion of Penalty for Genuine Tax Claim

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4 (1), Chennai. Versus M/s. MCML Train Control Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4 (1), Chennai. Versus M/s. MCML Train Control Technologies Pvt. Ltd. - [2018] 63 ITR (Trib) 144 Issues:1. Penalty deletion under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.2. Claim of expenditure for development of intangible assets.3. Failure to produce bills to support expenditure claim.Analysis:1. The appeal filed by the Department challenges the deletion of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The penalty was levied due to a wrong claim of expenditure made by the assessee.2. The assessee, engaged in the business of designing technologies for Train Control Systems, claimed an expenditure of &8377;1,81,35,161 for developing base designs for various projects. The Assessing Officer considered this expenditure as creating an intangible asset and allowed depreciation at 25%. The assessee failed to produce bills to support the claim, resulting in a disallowance of &8377;1,85,67,205. The penalty was initiated for making a wrong claim of expenditure.3. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty, citing that preferring an incorrect claim does not necessarily amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Commissioner relied on relevant case laws to support the decision, emphasizing that the absence of bills does not automatically invalidate the claim. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the claim was not unlawful and the explanation for not producing bills was reasonable. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).4. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's claim, though not accepted by the Assessing Officer, was not based on inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal highlighted that the claim was made after the Assessing Officer rejected the initial treatment of the expenditure, and the failure to produce bills did not prove the claim to be unlawful. The Tribunal supported the deletion of the penalty based on the principles established in relevant case laws.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, affirming the decision to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of bonafide claims and reasonable explanations in tax assessments, concluding that the penalty was rightly deleted by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).