2014 (7) TMI 647

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w: "1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in levying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for not reporting the Minimum Alternate Tax computation under Section 115 JB of the Act which was construed as an act of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income even though the interpretation of such provisions and consequential rejection of explanation offered in relation thereto would entitled the use of the legal discretion vested in the statute on the respondent in favour of the appellant? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in levying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act even though the mistake in not reporting the Minimum Alternate Tax computation in the original ret....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The plea of the assessee that there was no suppression of income based on their own calculation was rejected and therefore an appeal was preferred against the levy of tax under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act and the said appeal is stated to be pending. 4. Since the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars, the Revenue proceeded to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax. Hence notice was issued under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on 30.12.2009. After hearing the assessee, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax passed an order on 29th June, 2010 imposing penalty at Rs. 10,07,238/- under Section 271(1)(c) of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ual profit before providing of depreciation. The lower of the depreciation/business loss for two F.Ys viz., 31-3-2002 and 31-3-2003 were claimed and from the F.Y 31-3-2004 onwards profits before depreciation was available. Therefore, this difference in set off is because of interpretation of the amount eligible for set off. Because of this, according to the appellant, there is no liability under the provisions of section 115 JB, whereas according to the Assessing Officer there is a liability. The liability has arisen on account of difference in the interpretation of section 115JB. Therefore the appellant cannot be held to have concealed its income or had furnished inaccurate particulars, hence I direct that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the part of the assessee to report the book profit and made a work-out thereof himself. Assessee, by its letter dated 17.2.2012, addressed to the CIT(Appeals), had admitted that the amount of depreciation/loss available for set-off against book profit, was at the best Rs. 60,81,430/- for assessment year 2002-03 and Rs. 28,84,699/- for assessment year 2003-04. With regard to the brought forward loss for assessment year 2003-04, there is no difference between the work-out furnished by the assessee and the Assessing Officer. The difference pertains only to the brought forward loss of assessment year 2002-03. While assessee's calculations show the amount as Rs. 60,81,430/-, Assessing Officer had considered Rs. 21,47,324/-. Even if we presu....