TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish particulars necessary for the assessment and the case of the department that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars for the purpose of determining the tax u/s 115 JB stands established - penalty has to be levied as per the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the AO was justified in imposing penalty – thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration – Decided against Assessee. - Tax Case (Appeal) No. 82 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 9-7-2014 - R. Sudhakar And G. M. Akbar Ali,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. A. S. Sriraman For the Respondent : Mr. N. V. Balaji Standing Counsel for Income Tax JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Sudhakar,J.) This Tax Case (Appeal) has been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued and the authorized representative of the assessee was heard. In the course of the scrutiny proceedings, it was seen that the assessee was liable to tax under Section 115JB (Minimum Alternate Tax) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee was liable to pay Minimum Alternate Tax under Section 115 JB of the Income Tax Act. The adjusted book profit for working out the MAT payable under Section 115JB was calculated by the Assessing Officer as hereunder: Net Profit as per Profit Loss A/c 13799075 Add: Provision for bad and doubtful debts 254910 14053985 Less: Provision for Fringe Benefit Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he plea of the assessee and allowed the appeal holding as follows: 8. I have considered the facts of the case, the arguments advanced and the decisions relied upon. The liability as per the assessment order has arisen due to difference in interpretation under Section 115 JB as to what constitutes the eligible amount to set off while computing the book profit. The appellant had claimed the lower of the depreciation or loss before depreciation for the A.Ys 2002-03 and 2003-04. The Assessing Officer had restricted the set off of business loss pertaining to the A.Y2002-03 to ₹ 21,47,324/-. The difference of ₹ 39,34,105/-, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer was not eligible for set off against the assessment year 2007-08 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d failed to compute the book profit and tax payable under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. 7. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 31.7.2013, accepting the submissions of the Revenue, partly allowed the appeal holding that the assessee failed to make proper computation and therefore penalty was rightly imposed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, in paragraph 8 of the order held that there was no dispute that the assessee had not made any computation of book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, while filing its return of income. It is the Assessing Officer, in the course of assessment proceedings, found out that the assessee had reported higher carried forward loss and thereby filed 'nil' return. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... angle, assessee was liable to Minimum Alternate Tax. Assessee had failed to furnish a computation of its book profit in its return of income. But for the vigilant attitude of the A.O., this would have been missed out altogether. There was definitely a failure on the part of the assessee to furnish particulars necessary for its assessment. Rigours of Section 271(1)(c) was attracted. 8. In the light of the above, the findings of the Tribunal that in an admitted case of 'nil' return, without complying with the provisions of Section 115 JB of the Income Tax Act, where the assessee is liable to pay MAT and the non-compliance there of results in imposition of penalty in terms of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, is correct. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
