|
The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2975 (Mad-HC) : (2020) 273 TAXMAN 0420 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Where AO imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c)because assessee claimed deduction under section 10B beyond sunset year, imposition of penalty was unjustified as there was no mens rea or a guilty animus on part of assessee.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Validity - Assessee claimed incorrect deduction under section 10B beyond sunset year -
AO imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on allegation that assessee- 100% EOU deliberately made claim under section 10B for deduction of its 100% export income beyond sunset year of assessment year 2010-11 and assessment year 2011-12 involved in instant case. Held: Imposition of penalty and realisation thereof is not a regular source of income for the Income Tax Department. It is only the justifiably imposition of tax which is intended to be recovered and unless there is a mens rea or a guilty animus on part of assessee, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is an exception rather than a rule. In such circumstances, where two regular appellate authorities granted relief to assessee by deleting penalty imposed by AO under section 271(1)(c), same was not disturbed.
Distinguished:MAK Data P. Ltd. v. CIT-II 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2358 (SC)Followed:CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1683 (SC)Confirmed:DCIT v. Core Carbons Pvt. Ltd. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0952 (Chen-Trib)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2011-12
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT |