Padmini Infrastructure Developers India Ltd. v. DCIT

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 1087 (Del-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 271(1)(c)

Issue as to whether amount of deduction under section 80-IB had to be included as book profit for the purpose of section 115JB was disputable, on which two different views were legitimately possible, one such view being in favour of assessee. Eventually, assessee did not succeed in quantum proceedings, however, the assessee could not be burdened with penalty under section 271(1)(c), especially in view of the fact that all necessary details were filed by assessee in support of the claim and no material inaccuracies were found in such details.

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars - Leviability in respect of disputable issue of quantum addition -

As per assessee, amount of deduction claimed under section 80-IB was not to be added in book profit for the purpose of section 115JB.AO, on the other hand, took the view that such amount had to be added to Book Profit for the purpose of section 115JB. When matter was carried by assessee to CIT(A), he confirmed the addition made to book profit, as far as the amount of deduction under section 80-IB was concerned. Therefore, assessee was liable to pay taxes in accordance with quantum addition made under special provision of section 115JB . Also, AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) in respect of quantum addition on account of addition to Book Profit under section 115JB.Held: Issue as to whether amount of deduction under section 80-IB had to be included as book profit for the purpose of section 115JB was disputable, on which two different views were legitimately possible, one such view being in favour of assessee. Eventually, assessee did not succeed in quantum proceedings, however, the assessee could not be burdened with penalty under section 271(1)(c), especially in view of the fact that all necessary details were filed by the assessee in support of the claim and no material inaccuracies were found in such details.

Supported by:CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1683 (SC), CIT v. Samurai Techno Trading (P) Ltd. (2016) 389 ITR 357 (Ker) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 5159 (Ker-HC), Pr. CIT v. Torque Pharmaceuticals (2016) 389 ITR 46 (P&H) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4857 (P&H-HC) and CIT v. Mastek Ltd. (2015) 53 Taxman.com 142 (Guj). Distinguished:CIT v. Escorts Finance Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 44 (Del) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 0733 (Del-HC).