DCIT Vs Havells India Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act alleging inaccurate particulars not leviable as assessee was subjected to tax on book profits u/s 115JB.
Facts- The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and consequently assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the total income was determined at Rs. 227,43,00,686/-. While determining the total income various additions were inter alia made by AO.
The AO was of the view that with respect to the aforesaid additions that were made, assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and therefore liable for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. He thereafter vide order dated 16.03.2018 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied penalty of Rs. 3,21,45,230/-.
CIT(A) deleted the penalty. Accordingly, being aggrieved, revenue has preferred the present appeal.
Conclusion- We find that the CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee has given a finding that assessee was subjected to pay taxes u/s. 115JB of the Act, even after taking into consideration all the additions made by the AO in the assessment order. He thereafter by relying on the CBDT circular (supra) held that the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was not leviable. Before us Revenue has not pointed to any fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) nor has demonstrated that the reliance placed by CIT(A) on the CBDT circular is misplaced. In such a situation we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus grounds of Revenue is dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The above appeals by Revenue are directed against the separate Orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-27, Delhi, dated 16.03.2018 in Appeal No. CIT(A),Delhi-22/10012/2018-19 for A.Y. 2012-13 and order dated 28.03.2019 in Appeal No. CIT(A),Delhi-27/10004/2019-20 for A.Y. 2013-14.
2. Before us at the outset, Ld. DR submitted that though the present appeals are for A.Y. 2012-13 and 201314, but however the facts of both the cases are identical except for the assessment year and the penalty involved. He therefore submitted that the submissions made by him for arguing appeal for one year would be applicable to the other appeal also. Ld. AR did not object to the aforesaid submissions by Ld. DR. In view of the aforesaid facts we proceed to dispose of both the appeals by consolidated order but however refer to the facts in ITA 806/Del/2022.
2.1. The assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing of switchgears, electrical goods and bath fittings etc. Assessee had filed a return of income for A.Y. 2012-13declaring total income at Rs. 218,01,71,723/- . The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and consequently assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the total income was determined at Rs. 227,43,00,686/- vide order dated 25.02.2016. While determining the total income following additions were inter alia made by AO:-
