Assessee wins AMT tax credit set-off under Section 115JD and penalty deletion under Section 271(1)(c)

ITAT Indore upheld CIT(A)'s decision allowing assessee's claim for AMT tax credit set-off under Section 115JD for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The tribunal found CIT(A) correctly examined provisions of Sections 115JC and 115JD. Regarding penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ITAT confirmed deletion of penalty where assessee incorrectly claimed deduction under Section 80IB instead of 80JJA. Following Reliance Petro Products precedent, tribunal held that mere unsustainable legal claim doesn't constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars when all necessary details were disclosed and corrected during assessment proceedings. Revenue's appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Allowance of tax credit for Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) u/s 115JD of the Act.
2. Deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Issue 1:
The appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections by the assessed pertained to Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16, challenging the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and ACIT, Ratlam. The main issue was whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the claim of tax credit for AMT u/s 115JD of the Act. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing bio-fuel briquettes, had paid AMT for the previous year and claimed set off against the tax liability for subsequent years. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the set off, which the Revenue contested. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee was entitled to the claim as per the provisions of Section 115JC and 115JD of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the allowance of the tax credit for AMT for the relevant assessment years.

Issue 2:
In the second appeal, the Revenue challenged the deletion of penalty of Rs. 4,10,000 levied u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee had initially claimed deduction u/s 80IB instead of the eligible u/s 80JJA, rectifying the error before the completion of assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty, citing the principle that incorrect claims do not necessarily amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal concurred with the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts in the return of income, supported by an Audit Report. Consequently, the penalty was rightly deleted based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Cross Objections filed by the assessee were also dismissed as they became infructuous post the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee, upholding the decisions of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the allowance of tax credit for AMT and deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

---