Case: The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Petals Engineers Private Limited

4. The facts in brief giving rise to the present Appeal are as under:Thehad filed his return for the assessment yearIn the said returns, it had claimed deductions under Section 80IA on the ground that it had set up a new plant and machinery at Kundaim. The claim of theunder Section 80IA came to be rejected by the Assessment Officer. By an Order dated 22.03.1999 while rejecting the said claim, the Assessment Officer also levied a penalty @ 300% amounting to Rs.7,01,355/under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Being aggrieved thereby, an Appeal was preferred by thebefore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The Appeal in so far as claim of deduction under Sectionis concerned, came to be dismissed. However, the Appeal was allowed to the extent of imposition of penalty. Being aggrieved thereby, further three appeals were filed by the Revenue as well as assessee before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal dismissed the Appeal of the assessee in so far as deductions under SectionHowever, the appeals filed by Revenue in so far as imposing of penalty is concerned, were dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, the Revenue has come before this Court.

Reasoning:
It can be thus clearly seen that the Assessee under the bonafide impression, that since more than 80% of the cost at new factory was by installing new plant and machinery and only less than 20% of the cost was towards transferring the plant and machinery, it was entitled to benefit under SectionIt is not in dispute that the Assessee has not concealed any fact from the authorities. A specific reference has been made to this. The Tribunal has observed that for attracting penalty, a mens rea is necessary. It has found that neither there is suppression of fact or misrepresentation of fact by the Assessee and, as such, the Order of penalty was not sustainable in law.8. The interference against Judgment and Order of Tribunal would be warranted only if the Order passed by it is perverse or unsustainable in law. Merely because, this Court finds that two views are possible and other view is more attractive to it, it cannot be a ground to interfere with a well reasoned Order.