Jyoti v. Jani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1131 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1132 of 2018 ========================================================== PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT 3VersusAJANTA MANUFACTURING LIMITED ========================================================== Appearance:MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 11/09/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 19.04.2018. Following question is raised for our consideration:Appellate Tribunal dated 19.04.2018. Following question is raised for our consideration: “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the cancellation of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 by the CIT(A) amounting to Rs. 3,42,08,425/-?” 2. Issue pertains to penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['the Act' for short]. The Assessing Officer had made additions in respect of incentives received by the assessee in the form of under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['the Act' for short]. The Assessing Officer had made additions in respect of incentives received by the assessee in the form of excise duty refunds and sales tax exemption benefits. CIT(A) deleted such addition holding that the same were capital receipts and not chargeable to tax. He however, was of the opinion that for the purpose of computation of book profit under section 115JB of the Act, the same had to be included. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also confirmed this view. The penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer with respect to such amounts. While confirming the view of CIT(A) deleting such penalty, the Tribunal, in the impugned judgement, held and observed that the assessee had not concealed any particulars of his income. To the receipts in the form of sales tax and excise duty concessions, the assessee had followed his own interpretation believing that the receipts being capital in nature were not chargeable for computation of book profit under section 115JB of the Act. The Tribunal was of the opinion that clearly two views were possible and the assessee had held the bona fide belief and acted on the same. In any case, there was no failure on part of the assessee to conceal any particulars of income. We are broadly in agreement with the view of the Tribunal. 3. No case of law arises. Tax Appeals are dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) JYOTI V. JANI (B.N. KARIA, J)