TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GH COURT) has been made on behalf of the assessee which squarely covers the issue in favour of the assessee. The subsequent amendment to the Explanation (4) of Section 271(1)(c) also suggests the purport of the existing provisions as applicable in the relevant assessment year. Therefore, we find merit with the appeal of the assessee. AO is accordingly directed to delete the penalty imposed unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld.CIT(A) was correct by deleting the penalty which was levied on additions as per Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income for which penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s whereas the assessment has been ultimately carried out under special provisions of Section 115JB of the Act where the book profit was found to be substantially higher. The learned AR for the assessee thus submitted that where the tax payable as per the MAT provision exceeds qua the tax liability under normal provisions, no concealment can be envisaged under S. 271(1)(c) of the Act. For this prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the law and facts in perspective and deleted the penalty with which no interference is called for. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The short controversy in issue is whether under S.271(1)(c) of the Act can be imposed on the alleged concealment of income by the assessee quantified with reference to the amount of tax sought to be evaded a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
