2022 (6) TMI 901 - HC - Income Tax

High Court Upholds Tribunal's Decision on Income Tax Penalty; Complete Disclosure Justifies Non-imposition

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur Versus M/s Kishangarh Hi-Tech Textile Park Ltd.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It found that the assessee's ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of excessive depreciation - cost of acquisition of wind mill - whether or not assessee is entitled to the benefit under proviso to Explanation 10 of Section 43(1)? - HELD THAT:- As the proviso to Explanation 10 of Section 43 (1) of the Act was found not applicable in the case of assessee, an inference has to be drawn that assessee had submitted inaccurate particulars, cannot be accepted. Irrespective of whether or not assessee is entitled to the benefit under proviso to Explanation 10 of Section 43(1) of the Act, in order to entail liability for penalty, there has to be satisfaction based on material as required under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. From the papers which have been placed before us, we do not find that there is any material to come to the conclusion that in order to claim benefit of deduction under Section 43(1) of the Act, the assessee had submitted inaccurate particulars. No question of law arises for consideration in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Issues:1. Tribunal's decision on the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on inaccurate particulars submitted by the assessee.2. Whether the assessee's disclosure of subsidy and depreciation details in the Balance Sheet justifies the deletion of penalty.3. Interpretation of proviso to Explanation 10 of Section 43(1) in relation to the imposition of penalty.4. Assessment of whether the assessee concealed income particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars to warrant penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.5. Determining if there is sufficient material to establish that the assessee submitted inaccurate particulars for claiming deductions under Section 43(1) of the Act.The High Court analyzed the Tribunal's decision on the penalty deletion under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee did not submit inaccurate particulars leading to penalty liability. The Tribunal, after reviewing the facts, concluded that the assessee disclosed complete details of subsidy and depreciation in the Balance Sheet, justifying no penalty imposition. The Tribunal emphasized that full disclosure of facts and figures exempts the assessee from penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The High Court noted that satisfaction for penalty imposition requires evidence of concealing or furnishing inaccurate income particulars, which were not found in this case.The High Court scrutinized the relevance of the proviso to Explanation 10 of Section 43(1) concerning penalty imposition. The Revenue argued that the inapplicability of the proviso indicates inaccurate particulars submission by the assessee. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that penalty liability necessitates proof of concealing or inaccurately furnishing income details. The Court highlighted that the absence of material supporting inaccurate particulars submission precludes penalty imposition under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.Regarding the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 43(1) of the Act, the Court clarified that the current order pertains solely to the penalty aspect, not the deduction claim. The Court affirmed that the assessee's disclosure of subsidy and depreciation details in the Balance Sheet, along with adherence to relevant decisions, warranted the deletion of penalty. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal issue necessitating consideration and upholding the Tribunal's decision on penalty deletion based on the absence of evidence supporting inaccurate particulars submission.