FIVE NETWORK SOLUTION (I) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1550/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 October 2018AY 2009-106 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that if an assessment is completed under Section 115JB, no penalty can be imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for additions made under normal provisions. This is based on High Court decisions and a CBDT circular.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IA for interest and miscellaneous income, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The assessment was ultimately completed under Section 115JB as the tax on book profit was higher. A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was imposed based on the disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied for additions made under normal provisions when assessment is completed under Section 115JB.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IA,Section 115JB,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Saboo a/w, Shri Shyam Saboo
For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

Aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 30th January 2015, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–12, Mumbai, confirming the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2009–10.

2.

Brief facts are, the assessee company is engaged in providing high speed internet service. For the impugned assessment year, the 2 Five Network Solution India Ltd. assessee filed its return of income on 22nd February 2010, declaring nil income. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) in respect of interest income and misc. income called upon the assessee to explain why the deduction claimed should not be disallowed. After rejecting the explanation of the assessee, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80IA of the Act in respect of the aforesaid income and accordingly, added back the amount of ` 2,21,649, while computing income under the normal provisions of the Act. Since, the tax computed on the book profit under section 115JB of the Act was more than the tax on income determined under the normal provision, the Assessing Officer ultimately completed the assessment under section 115JB of the Act. However, on the basis of addition made on account of disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IA of the Act, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Though, the assessee in reply to the show cause notice issued under section 274 r/w 271(1)(c) of the Act objected to the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, however, the Assessing Officer rejecting the explanation of the assessee imposed penalty of ` 68,490

3 Five Network Solution India Ltd. under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Though, the assessee challenged the penalty order before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) also sustained the imposition of penalty.

3.

The learned Authorised Representative submitted before us, the Assessing Officer having completed the assessment under section 115JB of the Act, he cannot impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of disallowance / addition made while computing income under the normal provisions of the Act. In support of such contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in PCIT v/s International Institute of Neuro Sciences and Oncology Ltd. [2018] 402 ITR 188 (P&H) and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v/s Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd., [2010] 324 ITR 543 (Del.). In support of his contention, the learned Authorised Representative also relied upon Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular no.25/2015, dated 31st December 2015.

4.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

5.

We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. It is evident from the facts on record, the Assessing Officer

4 Five Network Solution India Ltd. made the addition of ` 2,21,649, on account of disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IA of the Act while computing the income of the assessee under the normal provisions of the Act. However, from Para–7 of the assessment order, it is evident, the Assessing Officer having found that tax on book profit computed under section 115JB of the Act is more than the tax on income computed under the normal provision ultimately completed the assessment under section 115JB of the Act. Therefore, the issue arising for consideration before us is, in a case where assessment is completed under section 115JB of the Act, can the Assessing Officer impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of addition made while computing income under the normal provisions of the Act? The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v/s Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd.(supra) while considering identical issue held that when the Assessing Officer completes the assessment under section 115JB of the Act, no penalty can be imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of additions made in computing income under the normal provisions of the Act. Following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the Hon'ble P&H High Court in International Institute of Neuro Sciences and Oncology Ltd. (supra) have also expressed similar view. In fact, taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. (supra), the CBDT vide

5 Five Network Solution India Ltd. Circular no.25/2015, dated 31st December 2015, has clarified that prior to amendment in section 271(1)(c) by insertion of Explanation–4 w.e.f. 1st April 2016, where the income tax payable on the total income as computed under the normal provisions of the Act is less than the tax payable on the book profit under section 115JB of the Act, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted with reference to addition / disallowances made under the normal provisions. Thus, in view of the aforesaid legal position, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be imposed in case of the assessee. Accordingly, we delete the penalty imposed of ` 68,490.

6.

In view of our above decision, the additional grounds raised by the assessee are of mere academic importance, hence, do not require adjudication.

7.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12.10.2018

More judgments on Section 80IA

All 1,796 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →