2019 (7) TMI 19 - AT - Income Tax

Claim of tax credit for Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) u/s 115JD - set off of AMT Tax credit for the tax liability for next assessment year while filing revised computation during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) - HELD THAT - CIT(A) was justified in allowing the assessee s claim by examining the facts of the case in the light of the provisions of Section 115JC of the Act, 115JC of the Act and also that provisions of Section 115JD of the Act which provides for tax credit of the AMT. We therefore find no insistence in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) allowing the assessee s claim for set off of AMT Tax credit for the tax liability for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - making wrong claim u/s 80IB in place of deduction u/s 80JJA - HELD THAT - We find that this is purely a case of incorrect claim by the assessee. However all the details necessary for computing the deduction were filed. No particulars filed by the assessee were found to be incorrect by the Ld. A.O relating to the computation of claim of deduction. It is also on record that during the course of assessment proceedings itself assessee made it clear that it has wrongly claimed the deduction u/s 80IB. As decided in RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 2010 (3) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee - CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) as the assessee has disclosed all the facts relating to the particulars of computing the profits eligible for deduction in the return of income duly supported by Audit Report. We therefore confirm the view of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the revenue s sole ground of appeal

Summary

Issues:
1. Allowance of tax credit for Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) u/s 115JD of the Act.
2. Deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Issue 1:
The appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections by the assessed pertained to Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16, challenging the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and ACIT, Ratlam. The main issue was whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the claim of tax credit for AMT u/s 115JD of the Act. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing bio-fuel briquettes, had paid AMT for the previous year and claimed set off against the tax liability for subsequent years. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the set off, which the Revenue contested. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee was entitled to the claim as per the provisions of Section 115JC and 115JD of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the allowance of the tax credit for AMT for the relevant assessment years.

Issue 2:
In the second appeal, the Revenue challenged the deletion of penalty of ?4,10,000 levied u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee had initially claimed deduction u/s 80IB instead of the eligible u/s 80JJA, rectifying the error before the completion of assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty, citing the principle that incorrect claims do not necessarily amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal concurred with the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts in the return of income, supported by an Audit Report. Consequently, the penalty was rightly deleted based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Cross Objections filed by the assessee were also dismissed as they became infructuous post the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee, upholding the decisions of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the allowance of tax credit for AMT and deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.