Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (3) TMI 667 - AT - Income Tax


Issues involved:
The judgment involves the appeal against the separate Orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-27, Delhi, for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13 and A.Y. 2013-14, regarding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

A.Y. 2012-13:
The assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing, filed a return of income for A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessing Officer (AO) made various additions to the total income, leading to the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty relying on a CBDT circular stating that penalty is not attracted when tax payable under normal provisions is less than tax payable under section 115JB. The Revenue appealed, contending that the CIT(A) erred in applying the circular and canceling the penalty.

A.Y. 2013-14:
Similar to A.Y. 2012-13, the Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2013-14. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) wrongly relied on the CBDT circular and that the penalty should not have been canceled.

Judgment:
The ITAT Delhi upheld the CIT(A)'s decision in both appeals, dismissing the Revenue's contentions. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly applied the CBDT circular, which states that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when tax payable under section 115JB exceeds tax payable under normal provisions. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to demonstrate any error in the CIT(A)'s findings or the application of the circular. Consequently, the appeals of the Revenue for both A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14 were dismissed, affirming the deletion of the penalties imposed by the AO.

Separate Judgment by Judges:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates