2016 (1) TMI 721 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - adjustments to book profit by AO u/s 115JB - Held that - The legal position is fairly well settled that when assessment was made on income computed under section 115JB and tax has been paid on income so computed, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed with reference to the additions that would have been made taking into account concealment made by the assessee while making assessment under normal procedure. SEE Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. 2012 (5) TMI 150 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to correctness of penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2005-06.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Correctness of Penalty Order
The Assessing Officer filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the CIT(A) regarding the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer contended that the penalty was rightly levied due to deliberate misclassification of income to evade proper tax. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, citing reasons such as the assessment being done under section 115JB and not initiating penalty in respect of adjustments to book profits. The CIT(A) also noted that a penalty cannot be levied for merely changing the head of income, as established in previous tribunal decisions. The Assessing Officer appealed the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A).

Issue 2: Legal Position on Penalty Imposition
The tribunal examined the legal position regarding the imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(c) in cases where the assessment is based on income computed under section 115JB. Referring to judgments by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, it was established that penalties cannot be imposed based on additions that would have been made under normal assessment procedures. The tribunal reiterated that if the tax liability remains the same before and after concealment is discovered, no penalty can be imposed under section 271(1)(c). The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty based on the legal principles established by higher courts.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2005-06. The tribunal's decision was based on the legal precedents set by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court regarding the imposition of penalties in cases where assessments are made under specific provisions of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal found the CIT(A)'s actions justified and declined to interfere in the matter, thereby affirming the deletion of the penalty.