1998 (6) TMI 116 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT's order, sets aside penalty, restores expenses for re-examination

The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order under section 263, except for directing penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). It confirmed the disallowance of ... Business Expenditure, Redemption Fine, Prejudicial To The Interests Of Revenue, Infraction Of Law, Penalty Issues Involved:1. Validity of initiation of proceedings under section 263 and the assumption of jurisdiction by the CIT.2. Allowability of redemption fine of Rs. 5 crores as a deduction.3. Examination of various expenses and deductions claimed by the assessee.4. Proper and valid opportunity granted by the CIT.5. Directions to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Initiation of Proceedings Under Section 263 and Assumption of Jurisdiction by the CIT:The assessee challenged the initiation of proceedings under section 263, arguing that the CIT's order was patently invalid. The CIT assumed jurisdiction under section 263, stating that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal found that the CIT was correct in assuming jurisdiction, as the assessment order was passed without proper inquiries, making it erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.2. Allowability of Redemption Fine of Rs. 5 Crores as a Deduction:The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 5 crores paid as redemption fine, arguing it was compensatory in nature. The CIT disallowed the deduction, considering it a penalty for infraction of law. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's view, stating that the redemption fine under section 125 of the Customs Act is penal in nature and not compensatory. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros and Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd., which held that penalties for infraction of law are not deductible as business expenses. The Tribunal preferred the view of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Rohit Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd., which supported the disallowance of such fines.3. Examination of Various Expenses and Deductions Claimed by the Assessee:The CIT directed the AO to re-examine several expenses and deductions claimed by the assessee, including bad debts written off, excess provision of income, and employees' contribution to the provident fund. The Tribunal found that the CIT was justified in restoring these items for fresh consideration by the AO, as the assessment order lacked proper inquiries and was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.4. Proper and Valid Opportunity Granted by the CIT:The assessee argued that no proper and valid opportunity was granted by the CIT. The Tribunal found that the CIT had provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee to present their case, and the order was passed after considering the submissions and documents provided by the assessee.5. Directions to Initiate Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c):The CIT directed the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the enhancement of income by Rs. 5 crores. The Tribunal quashed this direction, stating that the CIT could not validly give such directions under section 263. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.K. D'Costa, which held that penalty proceedings are independent and separate from assessment proceedings, and the CIT cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).Conclusion:The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT under section 263, except for the directions to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the redemption fine of Rs. 5 crores, considering it penal in nature and not allowable as a business expense. The Tribunal also supported the CIT's decision to restore various items for fresh consideration by the AO, as the assessment order was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.