TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 618
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its return for the impugned assessment year declaring NIL total income. Assessee had not made any computation of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) payable under Section 115JB of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noted that assessee was liable to tax under Section 115JB of the Act. The adjusted book profit for working out the tax payable under Section 115JB was calculated by the A.O. as under:- Net Profit as per Profit & Loss A/c 13799075 Add: Provision for bad and doubtful debts 254910 14053985 Less: Provision for Fringe Benefit Tax 44795 14009190 Less: Carried forward loss Asst Yr 2002-03 2147324 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al before CIT(Appeals). Submission of the assessee was that there were substantive brought forward loss, from earlier years, which had to be set-off against current book-profits. Break-up thereof was also furnished, which reads as under:- Profit & Loss Before Asst Year Depreciation Depreciation Lower of (1) (2) (3) (2) & (3) 2002-03 60,81,430 77,67,512 60,81,430 2003-04 28,84,699 2,13,52,356 28,84,699 2004-05 Nil 1,75,63,204 Nil 2005-06 Nil 1,45,24,200 Nil As per the assessee, atleast an amount of Rs. 89,66,129/- was required to be deducted from the net profit as per Profit & Loss account, while working out the adjusted book profit. 5. Ld. CIT(Appeals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unabsorbed loss of Rs. 60,81,430/- for assessment year 2002-03, was available for set-off against current book profit, was accepted, still there would be a positive adjusted book profit. Aggregate of the two amounts would come to Rs. 89,66,129/-, which was much lower than the reported net profit of Rs. 1,37,99,075/-. Thus, in any case, according to learned D.R., assessee would be liable to Minimum Alternate Tax. Assessee had failed to make any such computation. Therefore, penalty was rightly imposed by the Assessing Officer. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. (327 ITR 543), learned D.R. submitted that penalty could not be levied for understatement of book profit under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158), that of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Caplin Point Laboratories Limited (293 ITR 524) and that of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Skyline Auto Products Pvt. Ltd. (271 ITR 335). 8. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions. There is no dispute that assessee had not made any computation of book profit under Section 115JB of the Act, while filing its return of income. Assessing Officer had found during the course of assessment proceedings that there was failure on 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her hand, it is not on account of computational difference, but on account of failure of the assessee to report the book profit under Section 115JB, that the addition was made. As for the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra), there, addition and penalty resulted out of disallowance of a claim and Hon'ble Apex Court held that making an incorrect claim would not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. As for the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Caplin Point Laboratories Limited (supra), it was a wrong deduction claimed by the assessee for which penalty was levied. In the case of Skyline Auto Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) before Hon'ble Madhya Pr....