TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in law and facts by dismissing the appeal as not maintainable and failing to adjudicate the grounds on merits; the order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in law and facts by upholding the penalty u/s. 270A despite a timely application in Form-68; no speaking order u/s. 270AA(4) has been passed. Penalty cannot stand without first deciding the 270AA application; alternatively, the matter be remanded for a speaking order u/s. 270AA(4). 3. The Authorities did not clearly specify the exact limb (under-reporting vs, mis- reporting) in the notice/satisfaction. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant may kindly be given an opportunity of being heard under the principles of natural justice. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company which filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 on 30.11.2018 declaring loss of Rs. 47,34,23,222/- under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and book profit of Rs. 19,71,71,127/- under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 31.03.2019 declaring loss of Rs. 47,13,53,530/- under the normal provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs. 19,99,01,164/- under section 115JB of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and the assessment was completed by the Learned As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h section 143(3) of the Act dated 06.08.2021 rectifying the mistake. By virtue of the rectification order, the demand originally raised stood deleted and the assessee became entitled to refund of Rs. 41,14,553/-. The Ld. AR submitted that in substance there was no tax demand payable by the assessee pursuant to the assessment order and on the contrary the assessee was entitled to refund. 6. The Ld. AR invited our attention to Form No. 68 placed at page No. 38 of the paper book and submitted that the assessee had filed an application under section 270AA(2) of the Act seeking immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A of the Act. The Ld. AR further invited our attention to the provisions of section 270AA and submitted that immun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o Para no. 8 of Form No. 68, it was submitted that the assessee had specifically stated that no tax was payable because the demand had arisen due to a computational mistake in the assessment order and after rectification there would remain no demand. However, without considering the aforesaid contention and without examining the effect of the rectification proceedings, the Ld. AO rejected the immunity application. Thereafter, while imposing penalty, the Ld. AO observed that no order granting immunity under section 270AA of the Act had been produced by the assessee and accordingly proceeded to levy penalty under section 270A of the Act. The Ld. AR therefore submitted that the assessee was entitled to consideration of its claim for immunity u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rsuant to the assessment order was on account of an apparent computational mistake and that after rectification there would remain no demand payable by the assessee. We have also gone through para no. 16 of the order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Amalgam Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. ACIT (supra), which is to the following effect: "16. In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that no application was filed by the petitioner seeking immunity. In the said application the petitioner (2022) 1 High Court Cases (Del) 792 has, in support of its contention that it has satisfied the conditions required for grant of immunity in terms of Section 270AA of the said Act of 1961 stated as follows: "3.0 Sec. 270AA of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Hon'ble High Court has observed that where the demand determined in the original assessment order stands duly adjusted and after rectification under section 154 of the Act no consequential demand survives for the relevant assessment year, the matter requires consideration in the context of the assessee's claim for immunity under section 270AA of the Act. In the present case, we find that neither the penalty order nor the appellate order contains any detailed examination of the impact of the rectification order dated 06.08.2021 on the assessee's eligibility for immunity under section 270AA of the Act. The authorities below have also not examined whether, in the peculiar facts of the case, the condition regarding payment of tax and intere....