2013 (10) TMI 1391 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - MAT - computation of income was made under Section 115JB - Held that - It is an undisputed fact that the Assessee was taxed under Section 115JB of the Act and not under the normal provisions of the Act as under the normal provisions of the Act no tax was payable by the Assessee. It is also a fact that even after the additions of 46 lacs made in the quantum proceedings tax was still payable on the basis of book profits. We find that the Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. 2010 (8) TMI 40 - DELHI HIGH COURT has concluded that when computation of income was made under Section 115JB and concealment if any did not lead to tax evasion at all and therefore penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeals against CIT(A) order for A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2006-07, Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for unaccounted sales of Rs. 46,03,545, Concealment of income, Applicability of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when assessed under Section 115JB, Identical facts in both appeals.

Analysis:

1. Identical Appeals:
- The Assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A) order for A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2006-07, challenging the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) imposed for unaccounted sales of Rs. 46,03,545.

2. Penalty Imposition:
- The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 16,51,520 under Section 271(1)(c) for concealing income and furnishing inaccurate particulars.
- The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, citing the detection of unaccounted sales during a search and admission by the director, leading to the conclusion of concealment.

3. Grounds of Appeal:
- The Assessee contended that no penalty should be levied as the taxable income remained Nil after deductions under Section 80IB, and tax was paid on book profits under Section 115JB.
- The Assessee relied on the Delhi High Court decision in CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd., stating that concealment under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when assessed under Section 115JB.

4. Deliberation and Decision:
- The Tribunal noted that tax was payable based on book profits under Section 115JB, even after additions in the quantum proceedings.
- Citing the Delhi High Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that concealment under Section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed when assessed under Section 115JB, as it did not lead to tax evasion.
- As no contrary decision was presented by the Revenue, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, considering the facts and legal position.

5. Final Decision:
- Based on the identical facts in both appeals for A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2006-07, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that no penalty was leviable due to the assessment under Section 115JB and the absence of tax evasion.
- Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted, and the appeals of the Assessee were allowed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal reasoning and application of precedents in determining the penalty imposition under Section 271(1)(c) in the context of the specific facts and provisions involved in the case.