2018 (9) TMI 1173 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) - disallowance of Registrar of Companies Charges and Deduction u/s 80HHC - assessee has already paid tax as per the provisions of MAT u/s 115JB - Held that - No doubt, there was concealment but that had its repercussions only when the assessment was done under the normal procedure. The assessment as per the normal procedure was, however, not acted upon. On the contrary, it is the deemed income assessed under Section 115JB of the Act which has become the basis of assessment as it was higher of the two. Tax is thus paid on the income assessed under Section 115JB. Hence, when the computation was made under Section 115JB of the Act, the aforesaid concealment had no role to play and was totally irrelevant. Therefore, the concealment did not lead to tax evasion at all. Thus, there is no concealment of income or inaccurate furnishing of documents in the present case and case of CIT Vs. M/s Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. squarely applicable to the present case 2010 (8) TMI 40 - DELHI HIGH COURT - decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of charges and deduction u/s 80HHC.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by CIT(A)-II, New Delhi for Assessment Year 1999-00. The grounds for appeal included challenges to the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) regarding disallowance of Registrar of Companies Charges and Deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment was completed under sections 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with certain additions and disallowances made by the Assessing Officer, leading to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The CIT (A) dismissed the appeal, and subsequently, the penalty order was passed imposing a penalty of ?2,63,298. The assessee contended that the penalty was unjust as tax had been paid under section 115JB, and there was no concealment or inaccurate particulars furnished.

Regarding the penalty imposition, the Ld. AR argued that the additions made did not impact the tax payable under section 115JB, citing a judgment by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Ld. AR emphasized that there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee, stating that treating an expense differently does not constitute concealment. The company being in liquidation was also highlighted. The Ld. DR supported the penalty order and CIT (A) decision.

Upon review, it was noted that the income assessed under section 115JB was higher than under normal provisions, and the claim for deduction u/s 80HHC did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was referenced, emphasizing that concealment did not lead to tax evasion as tax was paid based on the income assessed under section 115JB. Consequently, the penalty was deemed unjustified, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no concealment or inaccurate furnishing of documents by the assessee, aligning with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The penalty was overturned, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.