2018 (10) TMI 1182 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Overturns Penalties on Exceeded Commercial Area Limit in Housing Project

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the penalties imposed by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) for all three assessment years. The ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - legality and quantum of penalty levied - disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) - 'substantial question of law” - Held that:- Respectfully following the decisions of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V Surabhi Homes Pvt. Ltd [2017 (3) TMI 1714 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] and also looking to the fact that “substantial question of law” is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the assessee, we are of the considered view that the lower authorities erred in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) merely on a technical ground. We therefore allow the relevant ground No.3 for all the three appeals challenging the penalty confirmed by Ld.CIT(A) u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07.Analysis:The appeals challenged the penalty imposed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was related to the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) of the Act. The key issue was whether the penalty was justified given the circumstances of the case.The assessee contended that the penalty notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not explicitly mention the specific charge of concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee relied on a High Court judgment to support this argument.Regarding the merits of the penalty, the assessee argued that no penalty should have been levied under section 271(1)(c) as the deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) was based on a project approval certificate and all details were accurately reported. The assessee cited a judgment where it was held that mere disallowance of a claim does not automatically attract a penalty.The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' orders, contending that the penalty was justified. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and reviewed the records before making a decision.The Tribunal found that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80IB(10) for a housing project but exceeded the statutory limit for commercial constructed area, leading to the disallowance. However, all other financial details were accurate and properly reported.The Tribunal referred to relevant legal precedents, including a Supreme Court judgment, to determine the applicability of penalty under section 271(1)(c). It also considered a High Court decision that dealt with a similar issue of penalty on incorrect claims under section 80IB(10).Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed by the lower authorities was not justified. It noted the pending appeal of the assessee in the Hon'ble Apex Court, indicating a substantial legal question regarding the deduction claimed under section 80IB. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the penalties imposed by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) for all three assessment years.The Tribunal dismissed the additional ground challenging the legality of the penalty notice as academic, given the deletion of penalties based on the merits of the case. Other general grounds raised were deemed unnecessary for adjudication.In conclusion, all three appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the penalties under section 271(1)(c) were set aside.