TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the opinion that Assessing Officer had to consider the claim of carried forward loss for assessment year 2002-03 as ₹ 60,81,430/-. Vis-à-vis the claim of carried forward loss for assessment year 2003-04, there was no difference in the claim of the assessee and that considered by the Assessing Officer. For the limited purpose of correctly working out the amount of unabsorbed loss available for set-off, we remit the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer. A.O. has to recompute the penalty accordingly. - Decided partly in favour of revenue. - I.T.A. No. 1012/Mds/2012 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2013 - SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Guru Bashyam, JCIT For the Respondent : Shri S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adjusted Book Profit 8977166 3. Thereafter, proceedings for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated for the failure of the assessee to compute the book profit and tax payable by it under Section 115JB of the Act. As per the A.O., assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Reply of the assessee was that against net profit of ₹ 1,37,99,075/-, there were unadjusted brought forward loss of ₹ 6,14,58,606/-. As per the assessee, there was no willful suppression of income and it had preferred an appeal against levy of tax under Section 115JB of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer was not impressed. According to him, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,75,63,204 Nil 2005-06 Nil 1,45,24,200 Nil As per the assessee, atleast an amount of ₹ 89,66,129/- was required to be deducted from the net profit as per Profit Loss account, while working out the adjusted book profit. 5. Ld. CIT(Appeals) was appreciative of the contention of the assessee. According to him, the difference between the assessee and Assessing Officer, while working out the adjusted book profit, was limited to the carried forward loss of assessment year 2002-03. Assessing Officer had restricted the carried forward loss for assessment year 2002-03 to ₹ 21,47,324/- against the claim of ₹ 60,81,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee would be liable to Minimum Alternate Tax. Assessee had failed to make any such computation. Therefore, penalty was rightly imposed by the Assessing Officer. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. (327 ITR 543), learned D.R. submitted that penalty could not be levied for understatement of book profit under Section 115JB of the Act only where assessee by itself had computed such book profit. According to learned D.R., failure on the part of the assessee to compute the book profit would automatically attract penalty. In the case of Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court held against Revenue only for the reason that assessee itself had computed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no dispute that assessee had not made any computation of book profit under Section 115JB of the Act, while filing its return of income. Assessing Officer had found during the course of assessment proceedings that there was failure on the part of the assessee to report the book profit and made a work-out thereof himself. Assessee, by its letter dated 17.2.2012, addressed to the CIT(Appeals), had admitted that the amount of depreciation/loss available for set-off against book profit, was at the best ₹ 60,81,430/- for assessment year 2002-03 and ₹ 28,84,699/- for assessment year 2003-04. With regard to the brought forward loss for assessment year 2003-04, there is no difference between the work-out furnished by the assessee and A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim and Hon'ble Apex Court held that making an incorrect claim would not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. As for the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Caplin Point Laboratories Limited (supra), it was a wrong deduction claimed by the assessee for which penalty was levied. In the case of Skyline Auto Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) before Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, penalty was levied on a wrong calculation of depreciation. Facts here are entirely different. Here, the penalty was levied for failure of assessee to report its book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. Nevertheless, we do appreciate there could have been difference with regard to the carried forward loss claimed by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
