TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1040X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t does not attract the provisions of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), as it cannot be considered as either ‘concealment of income’ or ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars’. See CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts Limited (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT) It is a mere claim of exemption which is allowed in the normal computation, but not allowable u/s. 115JB and there cannot be any penalty for a wrong claim. In view of that, we are of the opinion that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) are not attracted. Accordingly, we cancel the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 35/HYD/2016 - - - Dated:- 19-1-2018 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri B. Ramakotaiah, Accountant Member For Assessee : Shri Y. Ratnakar, AR F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 72,070/- Tax thereon - Nil Calculation of tax on the income u/s. 115JB: Book Profit u/s. 115JB - ₹ 2,34,76,570 Tax thereon - ₹ 41,40,614 (+) Surcharge - Rs. 3,10,546 (+) EC SHEC - ₹ 1,33,535 Tax - ₹ 45,84,695 (+) Interest u/s. 234A - ₹ 3,66,776 (+) Interest u/s. 234B - ₹ 16,50,492 (+) Interest u/s. 234C - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Years. In view of this, I am of the opinion that it is fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). The minimum and maximum penalty works out to ₹ 45,84,695/- and ₹ 1,37,54,085/- respectively. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I levy a penalty of ₹ 46,00,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . 5. Before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee reiterated the submissions and made detailed submissions along with case law it relied upon. However, Ld.CIT(A) did not agree with the contentions. Ld.CIT(A) examined the provisions of Sections 271(1)(c) 10(38) of the Act and also distinguished various case law relied upon by assessee to come to a conclusion that penalty is warranted. the order in para 5.10 is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess facts from the Department and this is a case of concealment of income. Thus I hold that the imposition of penalty on MAT liability to the tune of ₹ 46,00,000/- by the AO is justified. Hence, I agree with the AO and confirm the penalty. As a result appeal is dismissed . 6. Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions made that assessee was under the impression that Long Term Capital Gain was also exempt under the provisions of Section 115JB, as assessee has not noticed the amendment brought to explanation-1(f) of Sec.115JB w.e.f. 01-04-2007. Further, an affidavit from assessee s counsel was also placed on record. It was the submission that penalty is not warranted, as assessee has voluntarily filed the computation and paid the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is not allowable under the provisions of the Act does not attract the provisions of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), as it cannot be considered as either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars . In fact all the particulars are available, not only in the computation, but also in the P L A/c enclosed. Therefore, it cannot be stated that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars. Though the taxes were not paid initially, assessee has voluntarily paid the taxes also before completion of assessment. It was stated that it was advised wrongly not only in this year but also in other two assessment years as well. 8.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts Limited (322 ITR 158) (SC) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
