9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. The case of the assessee is fortified by the decision of the Delhi High Court v/s Nalwa Sons Ltd. [ 2010 (8) TMI 40 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein the income was computed in accordance with normal procedure is less than the income determined special provisions u/s 115JB and thus the income of the assessee was assessed u/s 115JB and not under the normal provisions and the tax was paid accordingly on the income as computed u/s 115JB of the Act. Once the tax is levied on the income of the assessee u/s 115JB then the case the concealed of income have no role to play and would not lead to tax evasion and therefore, penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of disallowances or additions made under regular provisions. Further in the case of CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in law, the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in Confirming the penalty on Forfeiture of shares and premium amounting to ₹ 1440000/- and disallowance of Depreciation 1105512/- without considering our submission properly. Additional Ground: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in levying a penalty of ₹ 11,03,657/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the act and the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the same although the tax effect is nil as the final tax has been computed as per the provisions of section 115JB of the act and the disallowances made in the normal computation do not have effect on the tax liability. 2. At the outset the ld.AR due our attention to the additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 24/12/2009. Income under the normal provisions of the Act was computed at a loss of ₹ 34,04,686/- by making interalia various disallowances while making the assessment on the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. The quantum appeal was also dismissed by CIT(A). The ld.AO levied the penalty of ₹ 11,03,657 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that various disallowances made by him in the assessment order were upheld by CIT(A) and thus the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by confirming the penalty imposed by the AO by holding that the additions made in the quantum order were confirmed vide order dated 16.07.2010 and the explanation offered by the appellant had not bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the act at ₹ 34,04,686/- We however, note that the quantum appeal was dismissed by CIT(A) confirming the made by the ld AO. Also the appeal against the penalty order was dismissed on the ground that assessee filed inaccurate particulars of income qua the additions made in the the assessment order. The appellant had been assessed u/s115JB Act and the various disallowances made in the assessemt order did not have any impact on the tax liability of the assessee. In other words the income computed under the normal provisions of the act is less than the book profits of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty u/s271(1)(c) of the act cannot be levied. The case of the assessee is fortified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
