Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1467 - ITAT AHMEDABADCharging of interest u/s. 234 - HELD THAT:- Assessee had filed the return of income on 30th September 2009 whereas the amendment to clause (i) to Explanation was made by Finance (No 2) Act 2009 with retrospective effect from 1st April 2001 meaning thereby that at the time of filing of return of income, the amendment(had already come into force and that the assessee was aware about it. During the course of regular assessment proceedings, Assessee voluntarily revised the computation of income on the basis of newly inserted s.115JB(2) Explanation 1(h). In such a situation it was held that when the assessee was under a bona fide belief and based his estimate of income as per the law prevailing at the relevant time of filing the original return of income, no interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act is leviable on account of subsequent amendment to the provisions. In view of these facts, we are of the view that the additional ground of Assessee needs to be decided against the assessee and therefore to be dismissed. MAT computation - Book profits u/s 115JB - provision for bad debts debited to profit and loss account for calculating book profit u/s.115JB (MAT) - in all the decisions that are relied upon by Ld AR, the issue in those appeals was not with respect to clause (i) to Explanation 1 of s. 115JB and therefore the benefit of those decisions will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. On the other hand we find that Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Steriplate (P.) Ltd. [2011 (5) TMI 645 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] , in the case of CIT v. Mysore Breweries Ltd [2009 (9) TMI 829 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and CIT v. Yashaswi Leasing & Finance Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 765 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] have held that in view of insertion of clause (i) to Explanation 1 to s. 115JB, with retrospective effect, amount set aside as provision for diminution in value of assets is to be added back for computation of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. In view of the fact that the provision made by the assessee is covered by the clause (i) to Expln.1 to s.115JB of the act and in view of the various decisions of Hon'ble High Courts cited herein, we are of the view that no interference to the order of CIT(A) is called for and thus we dismiss this ground of Assessee. Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - addition on account of "provision for bad and doubtful debts to book profit u/s.115JB - HELD THAT:- Merely because additions have confirmed in appeal or no appeal has been filed by assessee against additions made, it cannot be the sole ground for coming to the conclusion that assessee has concealed any income. Before us, ld.AR has given the reasons and the facts which had resulted into addition. These submissions have not been controverted by the Revenue. Further, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of income or had concealed the particulars of income. We also get support from the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] wherein 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. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|