2019 (5) TMI 1677

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessed under section 11 5JB and not under normal provision. It is not denied that there is concealment of Income but that had its repercussions only when the assessment was done under the normal procedure. 2. The Assessment as per the normal procedure was, however, not acted upon. On the contrary, it is the deemed income assessed u/s 1I5JB. Hence, when the computation was made u/s 115JB, the concealment had no role to play and was totally irrelevant Therefore, the concealment did not lead to tax evasion at all and hence the penalty should not be imposed u/s 271(l) (c). 3. Relevant judgements - Delhi High Court in CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd., [2010 (8) TMI 40 DELHI HIGH COURT], which has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Suprem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... concealment is not an essential ingredient for levy of penalty since it is only a civil liability and proceeded to levy of penalty of Rs. 2,95,589/- vide order dated 26.06.2012 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the levy of penalty. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act with reference to the income assessed u/s. 115-JB of the Act. Admittedly, the appellant had not disclosed the book profits liable to tax under the provisions of s. 115-JB of the Ac....