TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2018, the assessee would not have admitted the set off of brought forward losses at Rs. 4,91,78,071/- and would have got the refund. ii. The Ld. Addl. CIT(A) erred in not holding that nonreporting of revised entitlement of set off of brought forward losses in consequent to order giving effect to MAP resolution by assessee suo-moto amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 4. The facts that lead to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are stated in brief as under:- 4.1 The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant Company is in the business of manufacturing and servicing of diesel engines and its components. The Appellant company bearing PAN AAFCM1573L filed the return of income for A.Y 2016-17 on 30.11.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 81,53,230/-. Subsequently, the Assessee filed its revised return of income on 25.05.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,87,96,230/- and paid the taxes as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. On receipt of Rectification order and MAP Orders for AY 2009-10 and AY 2011- 12 in the month of December 2016, assessee filed a revised return on 25.05.2017 for AY 16-17 as there was a change in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epreciation claimed, which was on account of the adjustment due to the OGE of the MAP order received on 10/05/ 2018 by which time the statutory time limit for filing the revised return was over. The AR of the Assessee submitted that the order u/s 143(3) was passed without considering the submissions made by the assessee on 13.12.2018 which had mentioned about the additional taxes paid by the Assessee on 30.05.2018. The income was assessed at Rs. 10,12,55,130/ and accordingly the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was initiated on 17.12.2018 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4.7 The assessee also filed for rectification u/s 154 on 20.12.2018 before the AO to consider the suo motto challan paid on 30.05.2018 and rectify the additions and demand raised by the AO. The AO vide order dated 13.3.2019 rectified and reduced the tax demand raised after considering the additional taxes paid by the Assessee. 4.8 Further, in response to the initiation of penalty proceedings, the assessee made his submission vide letter dated 13.03.2019 stating that penalty could not be levied since the assessee had furnished all the details and acted in bona fide manner in filing returns and payment of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2019 Notice served to the assessee by JCIT Circle 4(1)(2) post Transfer of Case 19/6/2019 Assessee's response and submission to show-cause notice 25/6/2019 Penalty order issued by JCIT Circle 4(1)(2) 27/6/2019 4.11 However, the Ld.JCIT, based on the fact that the Assessee had not made suo-moto submission regarding non-eligibility of brought forward loss either in its Return of Income or before the Assessing Officer as well as on the ground that assessee was not eligible to claim brought forward losses and accordingly furnished inaccurate particulars of Income during the Assessment proceedings had levied minimum penalty of Rs. 1,78,30,779/- vide Penalty Order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) dated 27/06/2019. 4.12 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Penalty Order passed 271(1)(c), the Assessee filed an Appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) deleted the penalty with the following observations- "It is fact on record that this disallowance has arisen owing/consequent to the passing of Order dated 10.05.2018 by the Ld. AO giving effect to the MAP Resolution in assessee's case for AY 2012-13 which resulted in change in the loss carried forward fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch contention is a bonafide-contention the assessee-appellant had submitted that in its own case on receipt of rectification and MAP Resolution Effect giving orders for AY 2009-10, it had voluntarily revised the return of income for giving effect to consequential change in quantum of carried forward loss in the year under consideration i.e. AY 2016- 17 on 25.05.2017. This submission of the assessee-appellant has NOT been denied by the Ld. AO. In addition to this, it is the contention of the assessee that though the time limit for the year under consideration to file the revised return had already expired as on 10.05.2018 (date of Order passed giving effect to the MAP Resolution i.r.o AY 2012-13 (supra)), the assessee on its own worked out the revised total income based on consequential effect of the Order passed on 10.05.2018 for the year under consideration and voluntarily paid the corresponding taxes on 30.05.2018. The assessee had also attached the copy of corresponding challan. The fact of payment of such taxes by the assessee on 30.05.2018 as claimed by it is also NOT in dispute. Finally, to emphasize and bring forth its point that it had made payment of such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the refund. 7. Further, the Ld. DR submits that non-reporting of the revised entitlement of set off of brought forward losses in consequent to order giving effect to MAP resolution by the assessee suo-moto amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. The Ld.AR on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A) /NFAC and submitted that the Assessee has acted in a bonafide manner and had voluntarily disclosed all the relevant facts and also paid the additional taxes suo-motto on revised computation after the order giving effect of the MAP resolution was received by the Assessee. The Assessee paid the taxes voluntarily even much before the return was picked up for the scrutiny i.e. within 20 days of MAP Order giving effect for Asst. Year 2012-13 received. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. The summarised facts of the case is that the Assessee Company after filing the return of income for the Asst. year 2016- 17 on 30/11/2016 declaring total Income of Rs. 81,53,230/- filed the Revised Return of Income on 25/05/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,87,96,230/- for the Asst. year 2016-17 due to the fact that there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....absorbed depreciation, the Assessing officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I. Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income on or before the completion of the Assessment Proceedings. 16. Further, The Learned JCIT, Circle 4(1)(2), Bangalore based on the fact that the Assessee had not made suo-moto submission regarding non-eligibility of brought forward loss either in its Return of Income or before the Assessing Officer as well as on the ground that assessee was not eligible to claim brought forward losses and accordingly furnished inaccurate particulars of Income during the Assessment proceedings had levied minimum penalty of Rs. 1,78,30,779/- vide Penalty Order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) dated 27/06/2019. 17. In the above factual matrix of the case, we deem it fit to decide the moot question that under the facts & circumstances of the case whether the Assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of his Income specially when the Order giving effect (OGE) to MAP Order for the Asst. year 2012-13 was received by the Assessee after the date of filing the revised return for the Asst. year 2016-17 was barred by time and thereafter the Assessee h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax Act, 1961 had already lapsed on 31/03/2018 seems to be bonafide & justifiable. Under the above mentioned reason we hold that as the Assessee Company had paid the additional Taxes along with the Interest suo motto amounting to Rs. Rs. 96,39,172/- on 30/05/2018 itself i.e. way before the issuing first notice u/s. 143(2) of Assessment hearing , the plea of the revenue that had the Assessing Officer not issued the notice u/s. 142(1) dated 10/12/2018 the assessee would not have admitted the set off of brought forward losses at Rs. 4,91,78,071/- is not at all tenable. Further with regard to the claim of the revenue that had the Assessing Officer not issued the Notice u/s. 142(1) dated 10/12/2018 the Assessee would have got the Refund is also not tenable as the Assessee Company had already paid the additional taxes along with the Interest suo motto on 30/05/2018 under minor head "Tax on Regular Assessment (400)" after the preparation of revised computation way before the issuance of Notice u/s. 143(2) for the Asst year 2016-17. The Assessing Officer did not bring any material on record that the explanation given was not bonafide. 21. We are in complete agreement with the Learned CI....