ITO 9(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. CITIZEN SCALES (I) P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4731/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 November 2015AY 2009-104 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that mere making an incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially when a revised return was filed and taxes were paid before assessment completion without any loss to revenue.

What were the facts?

The assessee company filed its return and later paid the tax amount before the completion of assessment. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for a mistake in the computation of book profit.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when an incorrect claim in book profit computation is rectified by filing a revised return and paying taxes before assessment completion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Hearing: 23/11/2015

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02/04/2013 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai,

1.

2 M/s Citizen Scales (I) Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 14,23,483/-, levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act).

During hearing, at the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that no tax implication is involved in the present appeal as the assessee is assessed u/s 115JB of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision from Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 543 (Del.) On the other hand, the Ld. DR defended the imposition of penalty.

2.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts in brief are that the assessee company filed return, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 3rd March 2011, determining the amount of Rs. 16,89,190/- as payable. The appeal of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) (a) of the Act strictly calculating the book profit at Rs. 2,02,08,283/-, filed on 15.10.2009. The stand of the assessee was that due to inadvertence wrong hard copy of computation due to cut and copy pest was filed and further the tax amount of Rs. 16,89,190/- was paid on 29th Nov. 2011 i.e. before completion of assessment. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We note that in para 4 of the assessment order it has been categorically recorded that there was a mistake in computation of book profit and the same was pointed out by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings itself and thereafter the assessee immediately paid the taxes. It is noted that the assessee filed the revised return on 15.10.2009 and paid the taxes before

3 M/s Citizen Scales (I) Pvt. Ltd. completion of assessment. In such a situation the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd 322 ITR 158 (SC) comes to the rescue of the assessee, wherein, it was held that mere making an incorrect claim does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In the present appeal the assessee filed the revised return and paid the taxes, therefore, there is no loss to the Revenue. It is also noted that there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. In para 3.3.5 of the impugned order there is uncontroverted finding that complete facts were disclosed along with the return and the same has been reproduced. The assessee in its return of income (schedule MAT) computed total income u/s 115JB at Rs. 47,33,537/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 1,54,74,746/- from the net profit. Thus, in view of the decision in the case of Ms. Sania Mirza ( 526 of 2011) (AP) and the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in Price Water House Cooper Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 6924 of 2012), Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bennet Colemna & Company (ITA NO. 277 of 2012 dated 26.2.2013), Somani Evergreen Knits Ltd. (ITA 1332 of 2011 order dated 21.03.2013), and CIT Vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 543 (Del.) we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), his stand is affirmed.

Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

4 M/s Citizen Scales (I) Pvt. Ltd. This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 05/11/2015.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →