Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 788 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - deduction claimed by the assessee U/s 80IB(10) disallowance under normal provisions; and under special provisions of I.T. Act U/s 115JB - Held that:- the assessee’s claim U/s 80IB of I.T. Act has been upheld by Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi. Therefore, no penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act is leviable in respect of quantum additions under normal provisions of Income Tax Act, under which the AO had made addition, on account of disallowance of deduction U/s 80IB of I.T.Act Issue as to whether amount of deduction U/s 80IB of I.T. Act is to be included as Book Profit for the purpose of Section 115JB of I.T. Act was disputable, on which two different views were legitimately possible; one such view being in favour of the Assessee. On a the disputable issue of quantum addition, on which two different views are legitimately possible, of which the one favourable to the assessee has been adopted by the assessee; eventually, the Assessee may or may not succeed in the quantum proceedings and the disputable issue, on which two different views were possible, may eventually be decided against the Assessee in quantum proceedings. However, the assessee cannot be burdened with penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, if on a disputable issue of quantum addition, on which two different views were legitimately possible, the Assessee decided to adopt the view which was favourable to the assessee; in a case in which all necessary details were filed by the Assessee in support of the claim and when no material inaccuracies were found in these details, and when the assessee is not guilty of suppression of any material facts. As regards the contention for Assessee, that the AO did not make specific charge against the assessee - whether the penalty proceedings were for ‘concealment of the particulars of income’ or for ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’ it is already found that the disputable claim made by the assessee neither amounts to ‘concealment of particulars of income’ nor to ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’; it is immaterial whether the Assessing Officer made specific charge against the assessee whether the penalty proceedings were for ‘concealment of the particulars of income’ or for ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’. Therefore, presently we decline to express an opinion on this contention of the Ld. Counsel for assessee; because this is merely any academic issue at present.
|