TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act"] arising out of assessment order dated 26.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3)/147/148 of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee company was engaged in the business of manufacturing/agro based industries, filed its return of income on 30.09.2011, declaring total income of INR 23,63,416/- which was later revised on 26.11.2018 at a total income of INR 2,58,87,480/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 31.03.2018. The assessment was completed wherein the AO assessed the income of the assessee company at INR 2,59,84,420/- as per normal provision of Act and INR 4,86,98,700/- as per book profit vide assessment order dated 26.12.2018 passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... thus a genuine, unintentional mistake of understanding of the statute could not be a basis to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 1.3. That the conclusion there was concealment of income by the learned Assessing Officer and, wrong particulars of income by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) itself vitiates the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 1.4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that penalty proceeding and quantum proceedings are distinct proceedings and therefore conclusion drawn in quantum proceeding cannot automatically be made a basis to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 1.5. That various judgments relied upon by the authorities belo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. AR further submits that since the assessee had paid taxes on the book profits, there is no loss to the revenue if deduction u/s 80-IC of INR 2,33,44,909/- was wrongly claimed. 6. Ld.AR further submits that under similar facts, deduction as wrongly claimed in Assessment Year 2012-13 also, which was disallowed and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied which was deleted by ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR submits that the assessee has already filed revised return of income on 26.11.2018 wherein withdrew the claim of deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act wrongly made in the original return of income. Ld. AR further submits that even otherwise, tax paid under MAT was higher than the normal tax therefore, there is no loss to the revenue. Since no tax sought to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was not allowable. The assessee later through revised return of income, withdraw this claim. It is observed that even after revision of income, tax paid under MAT was higher than the tax on the normal income and there was no loss to the Revenue. It is further observed that other additions made were deleted by Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, income declared in the revised return is the final income of the assessee. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. reported in 327 ITR 543 (Delhi) has held that where income has been assessed u/s 115JB of the Act, no penalty can be levied for the disallowance made while computing the income under the normal provisions of the Act. The relevant contention of the order is re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been initiated. Issue necessary forms." 24. The income of the assessee was thus assessed under section 115JB and not under the normal provisions. It is in this context that we have to see and examine the application of Explanation 4. 25. Judgment in the case of Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd. (supra), obviously, does not deal with such a situation. What is held by the Supreme Court in that case is that even if in the Income-tax return filed by the assessee losses are shown, penalty can still be imposed in a case where on setting off the concealed income against any loss incurred by the assessee under other head of income or brought forward from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h order by Hon'ble Delhi High Court stood confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP filed by the revenue reported in 221 taxmann.com 184. Similar view is taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Unison Hotels Ltd. vs DCIT in ITA No.89/2013 reported in 40 taxmann.com 237 (Delhi). 10. It is further observed that penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for wrong claim of deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act in Assessment Year 2012-13 which was deleted by Ld.CIT(A) vide its order dated 02.11.2016 which is filed in the Paper Book placed before us and no appeal is preferred by the revenue against the said order. 11. The assessee has filed a chart before us according to which tax payable under MAT u/s ....