Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. H.p. State Cooperative Bank Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESHSHIMLA Income Tax Appeal No. 1 of 2023 Date of Decision: September 19, 2023 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax …Appellant Versus H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. .....Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?[1] Yes For the Appellant:Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate withMs.Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondent: Vivek Singh Thakur, J (oral) This Income Tax Appeal has been directed against the orderdated 12.01.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chandigarh in Income Tax Appeal No. 294/Chd/2020 with respect toAssessment Year 2011-12. 2The facts, in brief, are that respondent Bank has claimed thededuction in its return filed for the Assessment Year 2011-12 underSection 80P(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and finding the said claimerroneous, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla vide order dated28.02.2017 imposed the penalty of Rs.1,68,81,330/- at the rate of 100% oftax sought to be evaded. 3In Appeal No. IT/367/2016-17/Sml, preferred by respondentBank, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has set aside order dated28.02.2017 disallowing penalty imposed upon respondent Bank. 4 The order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was assailed by present appellant before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal which has passed the impugned order dated 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 12.01.2023 affirming the order dated 28.02.2017 passed by CommissionerIncome Tax (Appeals). 5The issue involved in present case is that respondent Bankhad claimed its eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of IncomeTax Act on the basis of audit report of its Chartered Accountant in Form3CA read with Form 3CD as prescribed under Section 44 AB of the Act. Ithas also come on record that in audit report, there is clear mention by theauditors of respondent that respondent Bank is eligible for deductionunder Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act and in view of above facts, no fault canbe found with the respondent Bank in claiming the deduction based on theexpert opinion and report, and therefore, as observed by Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) as well as Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, nomalafide can be attributed in assessee relying upon auditor’sreport/certification and professional judgment, and thus it cannot be heldliable for want of making independent verification and for making theclaim of deduction in the return of income. The Appellate Tribunal in its order has observed as under:- “13. We are therefore of the considered view that in the factsand circumstances of the present case, mere making of claimof deduction under Section 80()(2)(d) of the Act which is heldto be not allowable by the Assessing Officer as per law doesnot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of incomeand thus does not attract the rigors of section 271(1)(c) ofthe Act. In light of aforesaid discussions, we upheld the orderand the findings of the CIT(A) who has rightly deleted thepenalty levied u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. Ground No.1 of theRevenue’s appeal is thus dismissed.” 6Considering entire facts and material placed before us, weare of considered opinion that there is no infirmity, illegality or perversityin impugned order warranting framing of question of law much lesssubstantial question of law for admitting and entertaining the appeal and, accordingly, appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. September 19, 2023 (ms) (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge