ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-3(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, DELHI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated
28.08.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – 57, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for AY 2015-16 , in relation to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) levied by the Revenue are re
1. Whethe law. L
1,28,4
furnish provisi
2. Whethe law, Ld furnish submit
Revenu residen nonres
3. Whethe law, Ld furnish submit pursua branch as def
01.04.2
ground
2. Briefly stated, return of income
Rs.12,84,62,680/-. T the capacity of a dom the tax at the rate o branch office, of Oxfo the return should h
Therefore, the case o u/s 148 of the Act da return of income and on 17.09.2021 where
M/s O
ITA d by the Assessing Officer. The eproduced as under:
er on the facts and circumstances of the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the pe
6,270 levied under Section 271(1)(c) o hing v inaccurate particulars of incom ion of Company Act 2013 effective from 0
er on the facts and circumstances of the d.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the levying hing inaccurate particulars when asse tted tax resident certificate (TRC) issue ue & Customs, UK confirmed that the as nt for the purpose of UK-India tax Tre sident for India er on the facts and circumstances of the d.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the levying hing inaccurate particulars when asse tted annual accounts in which auditors r ant to the commencement of Companies h is covered under the definition of a for fined under section 2(42) of the Act wi
2014.The Appellant craves leave to amen d or add a new ground which may be nec facts of the case are that the on 01.04.2016 declaring to The return of income filed by mestic company (i.e. Resident s of 30% of the total income. The ord Press, UK according to the A have been filed in the status o of the assessee was reopened b ated 07.03.2020. In response th d assessment u/s 147 of the Act ein the penalty proceedings u/s Oxford University Press
2
A No. 5742/MUM/2024
grounds raised e case and in enalty of INR of the Act for e as per the 1.04.2014. e case and in g of penalty for essee himself ed by the HM ssessee is Tax eaty and thus e case and in g of penalty for essee himself remarked that Act 2013, the reign company th effect from nd or alter any cessary, e assessee filed otal income of the assessee in status) and paid e assessee being
Assessing Officer of non-resident.
by way of notice he assessee filed t was completed s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated income. The Assessi sought to be evaded way of impugned pen
3. On further appe as under:
“5.3 The fac order and t been conside
The facts of income was Rs.12,84,62, in the capac
30%. In the status of th taxed the in appellant.
During the a submission u/s.271(1)(c) submission
However, th penalty in misrepresen provisions n relevant to th
The AO has has referred
Act. As per explanation the AO or assessee an bonafide an material to disclosed, t
M/s O
ITA for furnishing inaccurate par ing Officer levied penalty @ 1
which was worked out to Rs.1
nalty order.
eal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the pe cts recorded & finding of the AO in the the submission made by the appel ered.
the case of the appellant are that the filed on 01.04.2016 declaring total i
,680/- for AY.2015-16. The Return w city of domestic company and offere e re- assessment order, the AO co he appellant company as non- resid ncome @ 40% instead of 30% offere appellate proceedings, the appellant ha on various aspects of levy of ).
The appellant has filed a covering all aspects of penalty u/s.
he submission of the appellant rega respect of inaccurate claim, (ii) pe tation or suppression of facts, (iii) not to be strictly construed, etc.
he facts of the case of the appellant.
levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act d to explanation 1(A) to section 271(1) explanation 1(A), if a person fails to or explanation offered is found to be an explanation is not substantiated nd fails to prove that such explana nd all the facts relating to the same computation of total income h then the amount added or disall
Oxford University Press
3
A No. 5742/MUM/2024
rticulars of the 00% of the tax
,48,26,270/- by enalty observing e penalty llant has Return of income of was filed ed tax @
onsidered dent and ed by the as filed a f penalty lengthy
271(1)(c).
arding (i) nalty for ) penalty are not t. The AO
)(c) of the o offer an e false by d by the ation was are and has been lowed in computing represent th been concea initiated pen inaccurate p penalty u/s.
particulars o inaccurate residential s non-resident section 271
was in resp income. Mer
271(1)(c) u/s.271(1)(c) income.
The facts of 2015-16 are CBDT’s orde
Non-resident assessment as Resident.
AY.2004-05, capacity order, the A initiated pen dropped by company ac
India, under 2013-14, th resident. Ho
Return of inc was accepte u/s.143(3) considered a levied penalt
The facts sh filing Return
From AY.199
the status o resident. Fo income as n
M/s O
ITA total income of such person de e income in respect of which particul aled. The fact remains that the A nalty u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of furn particulars of income. The AO has al
271(1)(c) in respect of furnishing of in of income. The issue regarding furn particulars of income is with re status of the appellant company; re t. The AO has referred to explanatio
(1)(c), it does not imply that the levy o pect of concealment of particulars re reference to explanation 1(A) to does not invalidate the penalty
) for furnishing of inaccurate parti f the case of the appellant for AYs.19
e that from AY.1994-95, the AO rely er dated 31.07.1994 held the comp t in India. From AY.1995-96, the A order mentioned the status of the . The position continued till AY.2003
the appellant filed the Return of inco of non-resident, however, in the ass
AO considered the status as Resid nalty proceedings. Penalty proceedin y the AO. On 19.07.2006, the a ccepted the status of company as re r protest, w.e.f. 1995-96. For AYs.201
he AO considered the appellant com owever, for AY.2015-16, the appell come in the capacity of resident in Ind ed in order u/s.143(3). However, in r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(3), the sta as non-resident by the AO and henc ty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.
how that the appellant has been con n of income in the capacity of non-
95-96 onwards, the AO has been co of the appellant as resident instead or AY.2004-05, the appellant filed R non-resident. The AO in the assessm
Oxford University Press
4
A No. 5742/MUM/2024
emed to lars have AO has nishing of lso levied naccurate nishing of espect to esident or on 1(A) to of penalty s of that o section y levied iculars of 994-95 to ying upon pany as AO in the company
3-04. For me in the sessment dent and ngs were appellant esident in 2-13 and mpany as lant filed dia, which the order atus was ce the AO nsistently
-resident.
nsidering d of non-
Return of ent order considered t initiated pe proceedings appellant, un its status as not rejected
16, the appe which was a the Act, how changed the resident and offered by th levied for fu respect of re has submitte the AO was that under p of the comp income in th chronology furnished to seen that al total income were furnis proceedings of residentia resident cou inaccurate p an explanat documents a was bonafid u/s.271(1)(c) company fro
Further, the appellant co
2004-05. Th also upheld appellant c accepted the resident in accordingly.
filing the Re
M/s O
ITA the status of the appellant as resid enalty proceedings. However, the were dropped by the AO. On 19.07.2
nder protest, filed a letter to the AO a s resident in India w.e.f. 1995-96. The the letter filed by the appellant. For A ellant filed status of the company as accepted by the AO in the order u/s.
wever, in the order u/s.147 of the Ac e status of the company from residen d taxed the income @ 40% instead he appellant. Penalty for AY.2015-16
rnishing of inaccurate particulars of i sidential status of the company. The a ed that during the re-assessment proc s informed about the letter dated 19
protest, the appellant has accepted th any as resident in India and filed R he capacity of resident in India. Thus, of events and the evidences/do o the AO during the penalty proceedi l the material facts relevant to compu e, i.e. the status of the company as shed to the AO during the re-ass as well as penalty proceedings. Mer al status of the company from residen uld not lead to a case of furni articulars of income. The appellant ha tion, which was substantiated by and the explanation offered by the a de, therefore, penalty could not b
) in respect of change of status of a om resident to non-resident.
e AO has been considering the s ompany as resident from AYs.199
he CIT(A) for AYs.1995-96 and 1996
the status of the company as resid company vide letter dated 19
e status taken by the AO and conside
India and filed the Return of Thus, the appellant has been con eturn of income in the capacity of re
Oxford University Press
5
A No. 5742/MUM/2024
dent and penalty
2006, the accepting e AO has AY.2015- resident,
143(3) of ct, the AO nt to non- d of 30%
has been income in appellant ceedings,
9.07.2016
he status
Return of from the ocuments ings, it is utation of resident, sessment re change nt to non- ishing of as offered relevant appellant be levied appellant status of 95-96 till
6-97 has dent. The 9.07.2006
ered it as income, nsistently esident in India and t
AYs.1995-96
CIT(A) has resident com no penalty u
Further, the views are po acceptable in Considering not furnishe of status of penalty of Rs is deleted.
Accordingly,
4. We have heard the relevant materia deleted the penalty, f assessee was filing resident however, th resident and thereaf status of resident un
Assessing Officer in CIT(A) concluded th
Secondly, the issue t or non-resident has b is leviable on the deb for the assessee sub response to notice u income in status of n
M/s O
ITA the AO has been accepting that posi
6 onwards. For AYs.1995- 96 and also upheld the status of the app mpany. Thus, following the rule of con u/s.271(1)(c) is leviable.
e argument of the appellant that w ossible, then no penalty could be levie n the case of the appellant.
the above facts, the appellant comp d inaccurate particulars of income i f the company as resident. There s.1,28,46,270/- levied by the AO u/s the ground of appeal nos. 1 to 4 are A rival submissions of the parti als on record. We find that the firstly, for the reason that in the return of income in the capac he Assessing Officer turned t fter the assessee started filing nder protest. The assessee fully e respect of residential status, t at no inaccurate particulars h that status of the assessee sho been debated in preceding years batable issue. Thirdly, before us bmitted that in the return of u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee non-resident and paid the tax @
Oxford University Press
6
A No. 5742/MUM/2024
ition from 1996-97, ellant as nsistency, when two ed is also pany has n respect efore, the s.271(1)(c)
Allowed.”
ies and perused e Ld. CIT(A) has e earlier year the city of the non- the status into g return in the explained to the therefore, the ld have been filed.
ould be resident s and no penalty the Ld. counsel income filed in e filed return of @ 40% liable to non-residents and t particulars on the pa not find any infirmity penalty and we accor of the Revenue are di
5. In the result, th
Order pronoun (SUNIL KUMA
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 31/01/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

M/s O
ITA herefore there is no furnishin art of the assessee. In view of th y in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) rdingly uphold the same. The gr ismissed.
he appeal of the Revenue is dism ced in the open Court on 31/0
/-
S
AR SINGH)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Oxford University Press
7
A No. 5742/MUM/2024
ng of inaccurate he above, we do
) in deleting the rounds of appeal missed.
01/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai