TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utation of book profit u/s.115JB of the Act. In the course of assessment, the AO noticed that the assessee had not furnished computation of book profit u/s.115JB of the Act. As per amended provision of Section 10(38) of the Act, the income claimed exempt under that section was required to be offered for taxation u/s.115JB of the Act. The AO, therefore, computed the book profit by including the exempt LTCG of Rs.8,52,63,544/- in the book profit and accordingly determined the tax payable by the assessee. As the book profit of the assessee was higher than the normal profit, tax was computed on the book profit. The AO also initiated penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of computation of book profit. Thereafter, penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed vide order dated 20.05.2010 and penalty was imposed for concealment of MAT income. The appeal filed by the assessee against the imposition of penalty had travelled up to ITAT and the ITAT vide order ITA No.1275/Ahd/2012 dated 09.02.2017 had adjudicated the issue of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and confirmed the penalty in respect of concealment of MAT inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd in the order of the ITAT. Accordingly, we recall the impugned order of the ITAT for adjudicating the ground no.1 raised by the assessee. .................... 16. Having heard contentions of both the parties, we find merit in the contentions of the ld.counsel for the assessee. The order, while dealing with ground no.2, notes the Ld.Counsel for the assessee to have stated the issue to be squarely covered in its favour by decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Stock Home India Ltd (supra), but goes on to distinguish it by finding that while in the facts of the case before the Hon'ble High Court the assessee was noted to have filed a revised return including therein calculation of Book Profits u/s 115JB of the Act and also filing Form No.,29B, the same was not done by the assessee in the present case. Ld.Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that both the acts could not have been done by the assessee as per law itself since the limitation prescribed in law for filing revised return and form No29B had expired by the time the assessee became aware of the lapse on its part during assessment proceedings. Ld.DR was unable to controvert this contention of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by the AO for the reason that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. However, in the impugned penalty order, the AO had imposed the penalty on the count that the assessee had concealed particulars of income. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that it was well settled that when penalty proceeding was initiated for one charge but ultimately the penalty was levied for some other charge, such penalty cannot be sustained. In this regard, he has relied upon the following decisions: ✓ CIT State Bank of India-SLP(C) 29581 of 2018 (Annex. A); ✓ CIT v. State Bank of India - ITA 129/2016 (Annex. B); ✓ Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory-359 ITR 565 (Kar); ✓ MultivisionInfotech P. Ltd. - 88 taxman..com 874 (Ahd); ✓ Dharni Developers - 61 taxmann.com 208 (Mumbai); ✓ CIT us. LakhdhirLalji - (1972) 85 ITR 77 (Guj); ✓ R. M. Bhatia vs. CIT-(1992) 193 ITR 379 (Guj); ✓ H. Lakshminarayana-61 taxmann.com 373 (Bang.); ✓ Autoriders India (P) Ltd.-191 TTJ 376 (Mumbai) 6. The Ld. Sr. Counsel has drawn our attention to the penalty notice dated 30.11.2009 issued by the AO, a copy of which was filed in a pap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that penalty proceeding has to be automatically initiated. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 332 ITR 158(SC) and in the case of Price Water House Coopers P. Ltd. 348 ITR 306 (SC). 9. Per contra, Shri Rignesh Das, Ld. SR DR submitted that the assessee had not responded to the query raised by the AO in the course of assessment proceeding in respect of working of MAT income, which was clear manifest of the fact that the assessee had deliberately neither provided working of MAT income nor responded to the proposed adjustment. Thus, there was a clear-cut case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income for which the penalty was rightly levied by the AO. He, therefore, strongly supported the orders of the AO & CIT(A). 10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The first ground taken by the assessee is in respect of validity of the penalty order passed by the AO. The assessee has contended that the penalty proceeding was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, whereas penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed for concealment of income. It is found f....