Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1867 - ITAT CHANDIGARHPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - AO held that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IC only @ 25% as against the claim of 100% made by the assessee - HELD THAT:- Assessee claimed deduction section 80IC in assessment year under appeal in a bonafide manner and mere fact that claim of assessee has been disallowed, would not prove it to be a fit case of levy of penalty for filing inaccurate particulars of income. The issue of claim of deduction was debatable and bonafide. There was conflict for determination of provision of law. Merely making a claim of 100% deduction against 25% as per opinion of the Assessing Officer under section 801C of the Act would not be at par with concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The decisions relied upon by Id. counsel for the assessee support the contention of Id. counsel for the assessee that it is not a fit case of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) . A mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding tlie income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars - See Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT]. Since the assessee's claim of deduction under section 80IC have been allowed in earlier years @ 100% and admittedly assessee undertook substantial expansion in assessment year under appeal therefore, assessee made bonafide claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act and there were no judicial pronouncements against the assesses: on the date of making such a claim. Therefore, it could not be construed that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee. Levy of penalty on the claim of deduction u/s 80IC w.r.t. carrying out substantial expansion in the 8th year is directed to be deleted. Penalty on interest incurred under section 14A - HELD THAT:- The appellant has claimed that the dividend received has not been included in the income eligible for deduction u/s 80IC and the same has been claimed exempt under the I.T. Act, 1961. The perusal of the computation sheet shows that the submissions of the appellant are correct with regards to reducing the dividend income from business income and claiming it exempt separately .Hence the A.O. is accordingly is directed to delete the penalty levied on this ground. Penalty on foreign exchange fluctuation - Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IC on foreign exchange fluctuation - HELD THAT:- ITAT in assessee's own case has referred the matter back to the file of the A.O. in assessment year 2010-11. The ITAT has allowed the deduction u/s 80IC on foreign exchange fluctuation in case it is relatable to business receipts of revenue nature. The assessing officer in A.Y. 2010-11 has not levied penalty on this issue. Considering these facts, the A.O. is accordingly is directed to delete the penalty levied on the addition made on account of the foreign exchange fluctuation. It is hereby held that the penalty cannot be levied on the claim of wrong deduction under section 80IC, claim of currency fluctuation, on disallowance of interest under section 14A, and claim of deduction on the interest received on margin money and misc. receipts as these do not constitute concealment of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income with reference to the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). Decided in favour of assessee.
|