TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1040
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e year, assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 2,34,75,483/- and dividend of Rs. 71,90,540/-. Since both the amounts were exempt from taxation, assessee filed NIL return. U/s. 115JB also assessee filed NIL return. In the course of scrutiny assessment, it was noticed that Long Term Capital Gain was not exempt from computation u/s. 115JB and accordingly, assessee filed revised computation and stated to have paid taxes as well. The Assessing Officer (AO) computed the assessment by stating as under: "02. The assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings has stated that it had claimed exemption for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 2,34,75,483/- and Short Term Capital Gain of Rs. 1,089/- while computing income u/s. 115JB but, on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orward voluntarily to offer the said amount to tax even when the case was converted in to scrutiny and the notice u/s. 143(2) was served on the assessee on 21-09-2013. It was during the course of assessment proceedings, that the issue was raised by the under signed to the assessee and the addition made. Further, the assessee's intent of evasion is apparent that it has made the same wrong claim for Asst. Year 2010-11 and Asst. Year 2009-10 and is not bothered to rectify the same till date. The case is reopened on 04-09-2014 for the said Asst. Years. In view of this, I am of the opinion that it is fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). The minimum and maximum penalty works out to Rs. 45,84,695/- and Rs. 1,37,54,085/- respectively. Consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n(s) AO was satisfied about contumacious conduct, concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, it could not be said that AO had reached a satisfaction requisite for initiating penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c), hence CIT(A) was justified in deleting penalty. This judgment was given before the amendment to section 271. Both the cases are distinguished and not applicable to present set of facts. Hence from the aforesaid, it is established that there is intention on the part of the Assessee to supress facts from the Department and this is a case of concealment of income. Thus I hold that the imposition of penalty on MAT liability to the tune of Rs. 46,00,000/- by the AO is justified. Hence, I agree with the AO and confirm th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O also notes that similar wrong claims were made in AYs. 2009-10 and 2010-11 also. This indicates that assessee was on the bonafide impression that Long Term Capital Gain was also exempt from computation under Section 115JB as well, as there is no dispute that the Long Term Capital Gain was exempt from levy of income tax under the normal provisions, thus there can be a bonafide mistake. Moreover, as seen from the penalty order, AO himself stated that assessee has made a wrong claim. Making a claim which is not allowable under the provisions of the Act does not attract the provisions of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), as it cannot be considered as either 'concealment of income' or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars'. In fact all the particulars a....