2018 (10) TMI 1268 - HC - Income Tax

High Court upholds ITAT's decisions on penalties, sales tax incentive, and depreciation. No concealment found.

The High Court dismissed all three appeals filed by the Revenue, upholding the ITAT's decisions to delete penalties related to disallowance under Section ... Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) - Dis-allowance u/s 80IA restricted to gross total income computed in order u/s 143(3) - Rejection of assessee's claim that sales tax incentive is in nature of capital receipt and therefore not taxable - Held that:- We do not think that the CIT(A) or the Tribunal was wrong in setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer levying penalty on Point Nos.1 and 2 reproduced above. As mentioned earlier, with reference to these points in the quantum proceedings, the Appeals have already been admitted in which a substantial question of law is raised. This would clearly indicate that there are debatable and arguable questions raised which would certainly be another factor to be taken into consideration whilst imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Addition to the total income on account of items not considered to be eligible for 100 % depreciation - Held that:- Considering the facts that we have discussed above and especially considering that when the claims as mentioned herein were made by the Assessee, they were governed by judicial decisions of the Tribunal, we do not think that this judgment would apply in the factual matrix before us. From the facts of the present case, it is clear that they were debatable and arguable questions which certainly did not warrant the levy of penalty on the Assessee. - decided against revenue Issues Involved:1. Disallowance under Section 80IA.2. Rejection of the assessee's claim that sales tax incentive is a capital receipt.3. Addition to the total income on account of items not considered eligible for 100% depreciation.Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance under Section 80IA:The Revenue challenged the ITAT's decision to delete the penalty related to the disallowance under Section 80IA for the A.Y. 2003-04. The penalty was initially imposed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) but later deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and confirmed by the ITAT. The ITAT relied on the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT in the case of Kothari Products Ltd., which held that Pan Masala containing tobacco is not a tobacco preparation covered by item No.2 of the 11th Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the deduction was claimed based on prevailing judicial decisions and all particulars were disclosed in the return, the court found no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, emphasizing that debatable and arguable questions were involved, thus justifying the deletion of the penalty.2. Rejection of the Assessee's Claim that Sales Tax Incentive is a Capital Receipt:The penalty related to the rejection of the assessee's claim that sales tax incentive is a capital receipt was also deleted by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the ITAT. The claim was based on the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DCIT v/s Reliance Industries Ltd. The facts regarding the receipt of subsidy and its treatment were clearly mentioned in the revised return. The High Court agreed with the ITAT that the penalty was not warranted as the claim was based on judicial decisions, and there was full disclosure of particulars. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v/s Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., which held that merely making an unsustainable claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.3. Addition to the Total Income on Account of Items Not Considered Eligible for 100% Depreciation:For A.Y. 2003-04, the CIT(A) initially upheld the penalty related to the addition on account of items not considered eligible for 100% depreciation. However, the ITAT deleted the penalty, noting that in the preceding year, no penalty was levied for a similar disallowance. The ITAT also accepted the assessee's explanation that the mistake in adopting 100% depreciation was bona fide, especially since the rate of depreciation was reduced from 100% to 80% in the impugned year. The High Court found the ITAT's decision to be plausible and not suffering from any perversity or error of law, thus upholding the deletion of the penalty.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed all three appeals filed by the Revenue, finding no merit in them. The court held that the ITAT's decisions were justified and based on plausible views, with no substantial question of law arising. The penalty deletions were upheld due to the debatable nature of the issues and the full disclosure of particulars by the assessee. The court also found the reliance on judicial precedents at the time of making the claims to be a significant factor in favor of the assessee. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.