2019 (2) TMI 1579 - HC - Income Tax

Tax Penalty Overturned, Excess Claim Upheld, Stock Issue Resolved

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT (A) Versus M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the Respondent-Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing lack of conclusive ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - excessive deduction claimed u/s 10B - Addition of excess stock - findings of facts - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has reiterated the findings of facts that both the additions made to the income of the Assessee having been set aside following the decision of the High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]as far as issue of Section 10B is concerned and on the issue of excess stock being tax neutral, such cogent and reasonable findings of facts returned by the learned Tribunal and consequentially setting aside the penalty under Section 271[1][c] of the Act, does not give rise to any substantial question of law requiring the consideration by this Court under Section 260-A of the Act. - Decided against revenue. Issues Involved:1. Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Excessive deduction claimed under Section 10B of the Act.3. Additions made on account of alleged excess stock.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The Revenue filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order which set aside the penalty imposed on the Respondent-Assessee. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. and the Karnataka High Court's decision in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, concluded that mere addition to returned income does not result in automatic levy of penalty. The Tribunal found no conclusive evidence from the Assessing Officer (AO) that the explanation provided by the Assessee was false or not bona fide. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s reasoning in deleting the penalty for the excess claim under Section 10B of the Act.2. Excessive deduction claimed under Section 10B of the Act:The Tribunal noted that the method of computation used by the Assessee was supported by the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Tata Elxsi. The addition was made on a debatable point of law, and thus, no penalty was leviable. The Tribunal found no justification in the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.3. Additions made on account of alleged excess stock:The Tribunal addressed the Assessee's cross objections related to the penalty on excess stock. The AO made the addition based on information filed by the Assessee, not due to purchases outside the books of account. The Tribunal noted that any excess stock was due to wrong entries in the books and should be allowed as opening stock for the next year, making it tax neutral. The Tribunal found no mala fides on the Assessee's part, as the tax rates for the relevant years were uniform. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO did not provide a detailed finding on how the Assessee furnished inaccurate particulars, which is essential under Section 271(1)(c). Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty order was liable to be quashed.Separate Judgments Delivered by Judges:Not applicable, as the judgment does not mention separate judgments delivered by the judges.Conclusion:The Tribunal's findings were in favor of the Assessee, reiterating that both additions made to the Assessee's income were set aside following the High Court's decision in Tata Elxsi Ltd. The Tribunal found the issue of excess stock to be tax neutral. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) did not raise any substantial question of law for consideration under Section 260-A. The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding it without merit.