9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 618 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - failure of the assessee to compute the book profit and tax payable by it under Section 115JB of the Act - CIT(A) deleted the levy - Held that - It is not on account of computational difference, but on account of failure of the assessee to report the book profit under Section 115JB, that the addition was made. Nevertheless, we do appreciate there could have been difference with regard to the carried forward loss claimed by the assessee for assessment year 2002-03 at ₹ 60,81,430/- and considered by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 21,47,324/-. For the levy of penalty, we are of the opinion that Assessing Officer had to consider the claim of carried forward loss for assessment year 2002-03 as ₹ 60,81,430/-. Vis- -vis the claim of carried forward loss for assessment year 2003-04, there was no difference in the claim of the assessee and that considered by the Assessing Officer. For the limited purpose of correctly working out the amount of unabsorbed loss available for set-off, we remit the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer. A.O. has to recompute the penalty accordingly. - Decided partly in favour of revenue.
Issues:
1. Penalty deletion by CIT(Appeals) under Section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Computation of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB. 3. Failure of the assessee to compute book profit and tax payable under Section 115JB. 4. Discrepancy in interpretation of Section 115JB leading to penalty imposition. 5. Difference in carried forward losses for assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. Issue 1: Penalty Deletion by CIT(Appeals) under Section 271(1)(c): The Revenue appealed against the deletion of a penalty of Rs. 10,07,300/- imposed under Section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(Appeals) deleted the penalty citing a difference in interpretation of Section 115JB of the Act, stating that variations due to legal interpretation differences do not warrant penalty imposition. Issue 2: Computation of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB: The Assessing Officer found the assessee liable for MAT under Section 115JB as the assessee failed to compute the book profit and tax payable under this section. The adjusted book profit was calculated by the Assessing Officer based on the available data, leading to the initiation of penalty proceedings. Issue 3: Failure of the Assessee to Compute Book Profit under Section 115JB: The assessee, a hotel business, failed to compute the book profit under Section 115JB while filing its return, resulting in the Assessing Officer determining the liability during assessment proceedings. The penalty was imposed for inaccurate particulars of income furnished by the assessee. Issue 4: Discrepancy in Interpretation of Section 115JB and Penalty Imposition: The difference in interpretation of Section 115JB between the assessee and the Assessing Officer, specifically regarding carried forward losses for assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, led to a penalty imposition by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(Appeals) deleted the penalty citing that penalties should not be levied for legal interpretation differences. Issue 5: Difference in Carried Forward Losses for Assessment Years 2002-03 and 2003-04: The discrepancy in the calculation of carried forward losses for assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 between the assessee and the Assessing Officer was a key point of contention. The CIT(Appeals) noted the difference in interpretation of Section 115JB, leading to penalty deletion. In conclusion, the judgment revolved around the penalty deletion under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to discrepancies in interpreting Section 115JB and the failure of the assessee to compute the book profit correctly. The decision highlighted the importance of accurate reporting and computation in tax matters, emphasizing the need for precise adherence to statutory provisions to avoid penalties.
|
