2023 (7) TMI 996 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal dismissed in Income Tax Act penalty case; assessee's disclosure and reasons found genuine.

The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Ahmedabad Versus Axis Bank Ltd.

The Court dismissed the appeal challenging the deletion of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. It found that the assessee's voluntary ... Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in the return of income filed - excess depreciation claimed having been surrendered by the assessee - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the revenue has failed to establish that there was a concealment of particulars of the income of the assessee. The revenue has also failed to establish that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. ITAT has observed that the addition made in the impugned case on account of excess depreciation claimed having been surrendered by the assessee itself without any prior detection of the Revenue and the excess claim having been demonstrated to have been made for the bonafide reasons and hence, the learned ITAT has held that the case is not for the levy of penalty. It is further observed by the learned ITAT that the assessee itself to align its books of accounts with MCA notification disclosed all particulars relating to the excess claim. In view of the totality of the facts and decisions rendered in the case of M/s. Bell Ceramics Limited [2021 (7) TMI 747 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] we are of the considered opinion that in the present case, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Issues Involved:1. Deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.2. Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.3. Applicability of substantial question of law.Summary:1. Deletion of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):The appellant contested the deletion of a penalty amounting to Rs. 2,30,45,220/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had previously allowed the respondent-assessee's appeal, leading to the deletion of the penalty. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in law and on facts by deleting the penalty without appreciating that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income.2. Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars of Income:The respondent-assessee had filed a revised return of income, declaring a lower income than initially reported. The assessment order passed by the AO determined a higher total income. The CIT (A) upheld the assessment order and imposed a penalty, observing that the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of income. However, the Tribunal found that the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee was surrendered voluntarily without prior detection by the Revenue and was made for bona fide reasons. The Tribunal held that the case did not warrant the levy of a penalty as the assessee had disclosed all particulars relating to the excess claim to align its books with the MCA notification.3. Applicability of Substantial Question of Law:The Court examined whether the appeal raised a substantial question of law. It referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. and Mak Data (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which clarified the conditions under Section 271(1)(c) and the necessity of a substantial question of law for appeal under Section 260A. The Court concluded that the Revenue failed to establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. The Court also noted that the Tribunal's decision was based on the assessee's voluntary disclosure and bona fide reasons for the excess claim.Conclusion:The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.