High Court Of Delhi
CIT vs. International Audio Visual
Section 271(1)(c)
Asst. Year 1989-90
Madan B. Lokur & Vipin Sanghi, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 1271 of 2006
31st August, 2006
Counsel Appeared
R.D. Jolly, for the Appellant
ORDER
By the court :
The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 18th May, 2005, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench “C” in ITA No. 4716/Del/2004 relevant for the asst. yr. 1989-90.
2. The assessee had claimed a deduction under s. 80HHC of the IT Act in respect of dubbing rights of Hindi films, which it says, it had sold to some foreign company. The AO did not agree that it was a sale by the assessee and concluded that it was not a sale of goods or merchandise but a receipt of royalty for transfer of dubbing rights. Accordingly, he disallowed the claim for deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
3. In response to the notice for initiating penalty proceedings, the assessee reiterated that it had not concealed any income nor had it furnished any inaccurate particulars of income and prayed that the penalty proceedings be dropped. The AO rejected the contention of the assessee and imposed penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
4. The appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was also dismissed. The second appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal was, however, accepted and that is how the Revenue is before us.
5. Having examined the record and heard learned counsel for the Revenue, we are of the opinion that there is nothing to suggest that the assessee was in any manner trying to mislead the AO. It appears that he had a bona fide belief that by selling dubbing rights to a foreign company, he was selling goods or merchandise within the meaning of s. 80HHC of the Act.
6. The AO did not agree with this contention and concluded that the payment received by the assessee was towards royalty and not sale of goods or merchandise. The contention urged by the assessee may have been incorrect but there does not appear to be anything to suggest that it reflected on the particulars of the income of the assessee or any concealment of his true income.
7. Under the circumstances, since there was no concealment of primary facts, it cannot be said that the assessee was liable to suffer a penalty under the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
8. We do not find any error in the view taken by the Tribunal in concluding that the assessee was not liable to be penalised for raising a contention which was not acceptable to the AO. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration.
[Citation : 288 ITR 570]
