TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1738
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act') levied by the Assessing Officer. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of INR 1,28,46,270 levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing v inaccurate particulars of income as per the provision of Company Act 2013 effective from 01.04.2014. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the levying of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars when assessee himself submitted tax resident certificate (TRC) issued by the HM Revenue & Customs, UK confirmed that the assessee is Tax resident for the purpose of UK-India tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpugned penalty order. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty observing as under: "5.3 The facts recorded & finding of the AO in the penalty order and the submission made by the appellant has been considered. The facts of the case of the appellant are that the Return of income was filed on 01.04.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 12,84,62,680/- for AY.2015-16. The Return was filed in the capacity of domestic company and offered tax @ 30%. In the re- assessment order, the AO considered status of the appellant company as non- resident and taxed the income @ 40% instead of 30% offered by the appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed a submission on various aspects of le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the levy of penalty was in respect of concealment of particulars of that income. Mere reference to explanation 1(A) to section 271(1)(c) does not invalidate the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The facts of the case of the appellant for AYs. 1994-95 to 2015-16 are that from AY.1994-95, the AO relying upon CBDT's order dated 31.07.1994 held the company as Non-resident in India. From AY.1995-96, the AO in the assessment order mentioned the status of the company as Resident. The position continued till AY.2003-04. For AY.2004-05, the appellant filed the Return of income in the capacity of non-resident, however, in the assessment order, the AO considered the status as Resident and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o non- resident and taxed the income @ 40% instead of 30% offered by the appellant. Penalty for AY.2015-16 has been levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of residential status of the company. The appellant has submitted that during the re-assessment proceedings, the AO was informed about the letter dated 19.07.2016 that under protest, the appellant has accepted the status of the company as resident in India and filed Return of income in the capacity of resident in India. Thus, from the chronology of events and the evidences/documents furnished to the AO during the penalty proceedings, it is seen that all the material facts relevant to computation of total income, i.e. the status of the company as resident, wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of status of the company as resident. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 1,28,46,270/- levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) is deleted. Accordingly, the ground of appeal nos. 1 to 4 are Allowed." 4. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty, firstly, for the reason that in the earlier year the assessee was filing return of income in the capacity of the non- resident however, the Assessing Officer turned the status into resident and thereafter the assessee started filing return in the status of resident under protest. The assessee fully explained to the Assessing Officer in res....