High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
CIT vs. The Shahabad Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd.
Section 80P(2)(a)(ii), 271(1)(c)
Asst. Year 1995-96
Adarsh Kumar Goel & Gurdev Singh, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 19 of 2007
12th October, 2009
Counsel Appeared :
Yogesh Putney, for the Appellant : S.K. Mukhi, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. :
The Revenue has preferred this appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 against the order of the Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench ‘A’) passed in ITA No. 1041/Chd/2005 dt. 7th June, 2006, for the asst. yr. 1995-96, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law :
“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,62,41,380 imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, totally ignoring the fact that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and making wrong claim of deduction under s. 80(P)(2)(a)(iii) ?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty in respect of wrong claim of deduction under s. 80(2)(d) and wrong claim of depreciation on guest-house when the learned Tribunal in its order has not given any reasons for deleting the penalty on these counts ?”
The assessee is an agricultural society engaged in marketing of sugar by its members. The said claim was rejected on the ground that the claim was available only on marketing of agricultural produce and not on manufactured article. While disallowing the said claim, penalty was also levied for making wrongful claim and thereby avoiding tax. The said view was upheld by the CIT(A) but the Tribunal even while holding that the claim of the assessee was not tenable, set aside the levy of penalty on the ground that there was no conscious breach of law which was required for levy of penalty, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC). There was no concealment or deliberate withholding of information or furnishing of incorrect particulars.
This appeal was deferred in view of pendency of quantum appeal filed by the assessee being IT Appeal No. 165 of 2005 (Shahabad Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT), which has been allowed by a separate order passed today, in view of full Bench judgment of this Court in The Budhewal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (2009) 225 CTR (P&H)(FB) 261 : (2009) 28 DTR (P&H)(FB) 88 : (2009) 315 ITR 351 (P&H)(FB), holding that claim of the assessee was valid. This being the position, there could be no scope for levy of penalty. However, learned counsel for the Revenue submits that wrong claim of the assessee was not only under s. 80P of the Act but also under s. 80 (2) of the Act, in respect of depreciation on guest-house.
From the order of the Tribunal, we do not find any such point having been raised by the Revenue. In any case, reasoning which has been applied for setting aside penalty in respect of wrong claim under s. 80P of the Act will also apply to wrong claim under the head of depreciation. Making of wrong claim is not at par with concealment or giving of inaccurate information, which may call for levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.
[Citation : 322 ITR 73]
