2011 (3) TMI 1622 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate tribunal upholds penalty for tax non-compliance

M/s. Trillizo Holding Ltd. Versus The ITO

The appellate tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the assessee company for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c). The ... - Issues involved: Assessment u/s. 115JB, Rectification u/s. 154, Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.Assessment u/s. 115JB: The assessee company filed its return of income declaring total income and the same was processed u/s. 143(1). Subsequently, it was found that the company is liable to tax u/s. 115JB on the net book profit. The assessment was rectified u/s. 154 after the company did not respond to the notice u/s. 154, resulting in the total income being determined at the net book profit amount.Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c): The Assessing Officer (AO) imposed a penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO held that the company had not disclosed its income as per the provisions of Sec. 115JB, leading to understatement of income. The AO relied on a decision of the Gujarat High Court to support the imposition of the penalty, emphasizing that even if some figures are disclosed, penalty may still be imposed for inaccurate particulars. The AO concluded that the company had a malafide intention to avoid tax by submitting inaccurate particulars of income, thus levying a penalty.Appeal and Confirmation: The assessee appealed to the Ld. CIT(A) arguing that the penalty should not be levied for incorrect tax calculations on already disclosed income. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, stating that the assessee failed to declare income u/s. 115JB and did not provide necessary details, leading to the confirmation of the penalty.Appellate Tribunal Decision: The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, noting that the company had not declared book profits as required by Sec. 115JB, thereby furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal held that the plea that no penalty is leviable in such cases cannot be accepted as the company avoided paying taxes and did not provide explanations for the discrepancies, upholding the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.Conclusion: The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, affirming the penalty imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.