9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at ₹ 44,84,22,703/- it was liable to pay tax u/s 115JB of the Act and on perusal of the Income Tax Return Acknowledgment and computation of income we find that the assessee paid tax and interest u/s 234B and 234C - Further we find that even after making disallowance in the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act there was no impact on the tax liability of the assessee u/s 115JB of the Act. So it remains an undisputed fact that the assessee was liable to pay tax only as per the MAT provisions u/s 115JB of the Act as the normal assessed income was a loss. Under these given facts and circumstances the assessee case is squarely covered by this CBDT Circular No.25/2015 dated 31.12.2015 and no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appreciating that the tax has been paid under section 11SJB and there was no additional tax liability under normal provision of income tax on account of disallowance made. 03. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty of ₹ 5,230000/- under section 271(1)(c ) of the Income tax Act. 03.That the learned Commissioner of Income tax ( appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty on the fact that the ground of appeal in respect disallowance of insert on income tax on which penalty is levied was taken in quantum app al and no submission was made but failed to appreciate that the ground was not pressed. 04.'That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has failed to ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising sole issue relating to penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at ₹ 5,23,000/- confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). 5. At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee apart from referring to the paper book dated 08.07.2020(36 pages), paper book dated 14.07.2021 (71 pages) and the decision of Coordinate Bench Bangalore in the case of Kotarki Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT in ITANo.3395/Bang/2018 dated 31.08.2021 submitted that in view of the circular No.25/2015 issued by CBDT dated 31st December 2015, for cases prior to A.Y. 2016-17, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted in case as the assessee is subject to pay income tax under MAT provisions u/s 115JB/115JC of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncealed income or income in respect of which inaccurate particulars had been filed. 3. In this context, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 26.8.2010 in ITA No.1420 of 2009 in the case of Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. (available in NJRS as 2010- LL-0826-2), held that when the tax payable on income computed under normal procedure is less than the tax payable under the deeming provisions of Section 115JB of the Act, then penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be imposed with reference to additions/disallowances made under normal provisions. The judgment has attained finality. 4. Subsequently, the provisions of Explanation 4 to sub- section (1) of section 271 of the Act have been substituted by Finance Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to A.Y. 2016-17 if taxes are levied under MAT provisions u/s 115JB/115JC of the Act then penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted with reference to addition/disallowance made under normal provisions. Examining the facts of the instant case, in light of the above circular we find that the assessee declared loss of ₹ 3,17,87,340/- in the e-return of income filed on 27.09.2012. However, since the assessee s book profit stood at ₹ 44,84,22,703/- it was liable to pay tax u/s 115JB of the Act and on perusal of the Income Tax Return Acknowledgment placed at page 26 and computation of income placed at page 28 to 29, we find that the assessee paid tax at ₹ 8,97,22,555/- and interest u/s 234B and 234C at ₹ 10,843,172/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
