2021 (10) TMI 798 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - respondent committed a default of not computing the book profit u/s 115JB - non furnishing of particulars of MAT calculation u/s 115JB in the return of income - ITAT deleted the penalty - HELD THAT - The question of law as proposed states for non furnishing of particulars of MAT calculation u/s 115JB in the return of income . The fact is the particulars have infact been furnished. Otherwise how could, in the order passed under Section 263 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax state - After going through the above mentioned assessment order and the records of the assessee, it was observed that prima-facie the assessment order suffered, inter alia, from the following errors i.e., the total income was assessed under the normal provisions and the book profit of ₹ 14,44,95,320/- was not assessed as income under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . If he has to assess the book profit of ₹ 14,44,95,320/-, certainly the particulars of MAT calculation must have been available before the concerned officer. In any event, if such particulars, which according to Mr. Suresh Kumar are mandatorily to be furnished by the assessee, which is a company, before the original assessment order was passed, the Assessing Officer would have certainly called for those particulars from the assessee. In any event, even assuming for a moment that such particulars were not furnished but only the return of income was filed showing the income tax payable on the total income as computed under the said Act, that cannot amount to concealment of particulars of income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income. Even the attempt, if any as alleged, to reduce tax liability by claiming wrong deduction cannot amount to concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. Tribunal has not committed any perversity or applied incorrect principles to the given facts and when the facts and circumstances are properly analysed and correct test is applied to decide the issue at hand - No substantial question of law.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment under Section 115JB, Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c)

Analysis:
The respondent, a construction company, filed its income tax return for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 claiming deduction under Section 80 IB of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) later revised the assessment under Section 263, assessing the income under Section 115JB. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on the grounds that the respondent attempted to reduce tax liability by claiming wrong deduction and failed to compute book profit under Section 115JB. The respondent appealed, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) set aside the penalty. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) also dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The appellant questioned the deletion of the penalty, focusing on the non-furnishing of MAT calculation under Section 115JB. The Assessing Officer highlighted the respondent's repeated default in computing book profit under Section 115JB in subsequent years. However, the appellant argued that the particulars were indeed furnished, as evident from the Commissioner of Income Tax's observations during the revision under Section 263.

The High Court found that the Tribunal did not err in its decision, stating that the facts and circumstances were properly analyzed. The court emphasized that the attempt to reduce tax liability by claiming wrong deduction does not amount to concealing or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it without costs.