9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 448 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - inaccurate particulars of income - CIT(A) deleted the levy - Held that -Income of the assessee was finally assessed u/s 115JB of the Act and not under the normal provision of the Act. The addition made by the AO in the order were confirmed to the income determined under the normal provision of the Act and not in respect of the Books profits u/s 115JB of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee has concealed any particulars or furnished any inaccurate particulars while computing the book profit u/s 115JB. In such circumstances the ratio of Hon ble Delhi High court in Nalwasons (2010 (8) TMI 40 - DELHI HIGH COURT) has been rightly relied upon by the ld CIT(A) and therefore no penalty is leviable. Moreover, it has been brought to our notice that the quantum appeal preferred by the Department against the assessee for the relevant assessment year has been dismissed and the appeal of the assessee has been allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 14.3.2014. Therefore, in such circumstances we are inclined not to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and we confirm the same and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
- Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Applicability of provisions of the Companies Act 1956 - Assessment under section 115JB of the Act - Deletion of penalty by CIT(A) - Confirmation of deletion of penalty by ITAT Analysis: 1. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: - The assessing officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 104,68,13,101 on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. - The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, leading to an appeal by the revenue. - The ITAT upheld the deletion of the penalty based on the assessment under section 115JB of the Act and the legal fiction of book profits being deemed as total income. 2. Applicability of provisions of the Companies Act 1956: - The dispute arose regarding the applicability of the Income Tax Act 1961 versus the Companies Act 1956 in the case of the assessee. - The CIT(A) clarified that the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 were applicable to the assessee, emphasizing the assessment under section 115JB of the Act. 3. Assessment under section 115JB of the Act: - The assessee's income was finally assessed under section 115JB of the Act, not under the normal provisions. - The penalty was imposed based on the additions/disallowances upheld by the CIT(A) in the quantum appeal. - The ITAT noted that the penalty could not be imposed as the tax was paid at deemed income under section 115JB, rendering the inaccurate particulars irrelevant for tax evasion purposes. 4. Deletion of penalty by CIT(A): - The CIT(A) deleted the penalty considering that the inaccurate particulars did not impact the tax sought to be evaded, given the assessment under section 115JB. - The CIT(A) relied on legal precedents to support the deletion of the penalty, emphasizing the acceptance of book profits by the AO. 5. Confirmation of deletion of penalty by ITAT: - The ITAT confirmed the deletion of the penalty, emphasizing that the additions made by the AO were in respect of normal provisions, not the book profits under section 115JB. - The ITAT also considered the dismissal of the quantum appeal by the Department and the allowance of the assessee's appeal, leading to the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order. In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the deletion of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) by the assessing officer, emphasizing the assessment under section 115JB of the Act and the acceptance of book profits for the assessee. The ITAT's decision was based on the legal principles and precedents cited by the CIT(A) in support of deleting the penalty.
|
