Gujarat High Court
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 vs Radhe Infrastructure And Projects ... on 22 August, 2017
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Biren Vaishnav
O/TAXAP/487/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 487 of 2017
==========================================================
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, AHMEDABAD....Appellant(s)
Versus
RADHE INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROJECTS INDIA LTD....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NITIN K MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 22/08/2017
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 09.11.2016 raising following questions for our consideration:
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in upholding the order of the CIT (A) and thereby cancelling the penalty of Rs.
20,05,740/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act?
2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in distinguishing the facts of the assessee and the facts examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) while confirming the order of the CIT(A) and thereby deleting the penalty of Rs.20,05,740/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act?
Page 1 of 3
HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Fri Aug 25 12:47:53 IST 2017
O/TAXAP/487/2017 ORDER
2. The issue pertains to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer having levied the penalty, the assessee preferred appeal. The Appellate Commissioner deleted the penalty upon which the Revenue approached the Tribunal. Tribunal by impugned judgement confirmed the view of the CIT(A) making following observations:
"11. Considering the aforementioned factual details furnished at the time of returns of income itself and the corresponding acceptance of the proposition made by the AO during the course of the assessment proceedings show that the assessee never filed any inaccurate particulars of income. Merely because a claim of deduction made by the assessee did not find favour with the AO, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the act cannot be justified. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., reported in 322 ITR 158(SC).
12. In light of the afore stated factual matrix, we do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A). all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed."
3. From the record, it emerges that the assessee had raised a certain claim of deduction. Though this claim was rejected, it was found that the assessee had not supplied inaccurate particulars of the income. The Tribunal therefore referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158 and held that merely because a claim has been rejected, that by itself would not mean that penalty should also attach. In similar circumstances, in case of this very assessee in Tax Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Fri Aug 25 12:47:53 IST 2017 O/TAXAP/487/2017 ORDER Appeal No. 484 of 2017 we had upheld the view of the Tribunal. In view of above discussion, no question of law arises.
4. Tax appeal is therefore dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (BIREN VAISHNAV, J.) divya Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Fri Aug 25 12:47:53 IST 2017