Case Law Details
Lahmeyer Holding GambH Vs DDIT (ITAT Delhi)
Assessee on the basis of bonafide belief to the effect, as the Assessee do not have PE in India qua projects on the basis of which income has been earned, therefore offered its income for tax on presumptive basis u/s 44BBB of the Act which prescribe the tax payable @ 10%. The said claim of the Assessee was declined by the Assessing officer and income of the Assessee was taxed @ 20%, and subsequently penalty under consideration was imposed which stands sustained by the Ld. Commissioner in appeal.
ITAT held that, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances as narrated above and specifically to the effects that in the instant case, the retuned income and assessed income is the same, which in our considered view favors the Assessee’s case and respectively following the judgments referred above, we are of the considered view that simply because the Assessee may be on bonafide belief or misconception that the Assessee do not have „PE’ in India and/or on the basis of certificate dated 19.05.2004 issued u/s 197 of the Act by the revenue department, chosen to compute the tax payable on its income u/s 44BBB of the Ac, that itself cannot entail imposition of penalty. Hence, we are inclined to delete the penalty imposed by the ld. AO and affirmed by the ld. Commissioner vide impugned order. Consequently the appealfiled by the Assessee is allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
1. These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the consolidated order dated 25.06.2013 impugned herein passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–XXIX, New Delhi {hereinafter called in short as the “ld. Commissioner”} for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06, whereby the Ld. Commissioner upheld the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short „the Act‟) by the Assessing Officer.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
