9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessment as per normal procedure was not acted upon and only the deemed income assessed under section 115JB became the basis of assessment as it was higher of the two. In the case of Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. it was held that when the tax was calculated on the deemed income under section 115JB. the Revenue is not to impose penalty. Since the tax has been paid by the assessee under section 115JB, therefore, not penalty could be levied in respect of additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. Respectfully following the decision M/S. NALWA SONS INVESTMENTS LTD. [ 2010 (8) TMI 40 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the learned CIT(A). Resultantly the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had levied tax u/s. 115J3 which appellant had paid. However, A.O. had levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) for not paying the tax u/s. 115JB on the ground that appellant had filed inaccurate particulars of income. Here the issue to be considered is whether the penalty can be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) if the income is calculated on the deemed income u/s. 115JB. This issue was considered by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. 327 ITR 543 wherein it is held as under: "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 deemed income assessed under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d assessed the income under section 115JB and accordingly the assessee paid tax. Later on the learned Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 2.3 On appeal before the learned CIT(A) the written submission of the assessee were considered in which broadly the decision in Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. (supra) was considered. The penalty was deleted. The Revenue is aggrieved and is in appeal before this Tribunal. 2.4 In view of the above, considering the decision in CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. at the SLP against the decision was rejected by Hon'ble Apex Court in 194 Taxman 387 (SC) and the facts available on record there is no disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
