9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 154/143(3)/147 and 271(1)(C) dated 22.08.2017/30.8.2016 & 29.03.2017 framed by ACIT, Ratlam. 2. Two appeals No.694 & 695/Ind/2018 are raised by the revenue against the order issued u/s 143(3) for Assessment Year 2014-15 & u/s 154 of the Act for Assessment Year 2015-16 assessee has raised Cross Objections No.16 & 17/Ind/2019 against the above appeals. Appeal No.696/Ind/2018 is raised by the revenue against the order issued u/s 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2014-15 and Cross Objection No.18/Ind/2019 has been raised by the assessee against the above appeal. 3. As the issues raised in these appeals are common these were heard together and therefore are being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 4. We wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee paid AMT of Rs. 18,37,194/- for Assessment Year 2013-14. Against this credit of Rs. 18,37,194/- assessee claimed set off of tax liability of Rs. 1,72,488/- and Rs. 1,40,928/- for Assessment Year 2014-15 and Assessment Year 2015-16 respectively out of the AMT tax credit brought forward at Rs. 18,34,194/-. Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the issue for Assessment Year 2014-15 allowed the assessee's claim of set off of tax liability of Rs. 1,72,488/- against the brought forward AMT at Rs. 18,94,134/- observing as follows; "4.1 Ground No.l, 2 & 3:- Through these grounds of appeal the appellant has challenged the disallowance of credit of AMT paid in the A.Y.2013-14 amounting to Rs. 18,37,194/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch credit. Tax credit shall be allowed to be set-off for an assessment year in which the regular income tax exceeds the AMT to the extent of the excess of regular Income Tax over the AMT. As, per the provision of section 115JD tax credit alternate minimum tax: i. The credit for tax paid by [a person under section 115JC shall be allowed to him] in accordance with the provisions of this section. ii.The tax credit of an assessment year to be allowed under sub-section (1) shall be the excess of alternate minimum tax paid over the regular income tax payable of that year. iii. No interest shall be payable on tax credit allowed under subsection (1). iv, The amount of tax credit determined under sub-section (2) shall be carried forward ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MT. Therefore, the appeal on these grounds is Allowed. In the result appeal filed by the appellant is Allowed. 8. The above finding of Ld. CIT(A) stands uncontroverted by Ld. Departmental Representative. In our view Ld. 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 insistency in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) allowing the assessee's claim for set off of AMT Tax credit for the tax liability of Rs. 1,72,488/- and Rs. 12,40,928/- for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16. Accordingly the common ground raised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee was eligible for claim of deduction u/s 80JJA of the Act which was allowable only up to Assessment Year 2013-14 but the assessee was making wrong claim u/s 80IB of the Act and the same was inadvertently made for Assessment Year 2014-15 also. However Ld. A.O denied the claim u/s 80IB and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Subsequently penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated and vide order dated 27.3.2017 penalty of Rs. 4,10,000/- was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for deliberately furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income by making wrong claim u/s 80IB of the Act at Rs. 12,99,835/-. Against the levy of penalty assessee preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act for making incorrect claim in the return of income. We find that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 152 (SC) has held that " A 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. If the contention of the Revenue is accepted then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by the AO for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty u/s 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature". 14. The above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court has been followed by Ld. CIT(A) for deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We therefore in the given facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
