M/s Shree Magnets Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata V. I.T.O.,Ward-5(1), Kolkata

ITA 2424/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2367 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Kolkata
• Next Hearing Date: 30-09-2020
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Competent authority; Revised return
• Section: 271(1)(c); 115JB; 250; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA VIRTUAL COURT HEARING (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI S.S. GODARA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO. 2424/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 M/S. SHREE MAGNETS PVT. LTD........................................APPELLANT 81, SODEPUR BARASAT ROAD MURAGACHA POST JUGBERIA KOLKATA 700 110 [PAN : AAGCS 8120 C] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA........................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUNIL SURANA, A/R, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI DHRUBAJYOTI RAY, JCIT, D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 30 TH , 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 25 TH , 2020 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, KOLKATA, (HEREINAFTER THE LD. CIT(A)), PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 11/09/2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE IS A COMPANY AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16, DECLARING NIL INCOME ON 30/09/2015. LATER IT FILED A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 11/11/2015 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.93,390/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT HAD DECLARED INCOME U/S 115JB OF THE ACT OF RS.37,54,094/-. THE TAX UNDER MAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16, IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN DECLARED AT RS.7,15,343/-. THESE ASPECTS ARE NOT REFLECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER. INSTEAD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE INCOME UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISION OF THE ACT AT RS.13,35,950/-, BY HOLDING THAT, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED HIGHER INCOME OF RS.12,42,560/-, DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY. HE DID MENTION AT PARA 5 OF HIS ORDER THAT MAT CREDITS IS DECREASED DUE TO THIS FACT BY RS.3,83,951/-. IN OTHER WORDS, THE MAT CREDIT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.3,02,534/- IS NOT RECOGNISED. PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED. LATER PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DT. 29/03/2018. IN THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE WAS PENALISED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE REASON FOR THE INCREASE IN INCOME UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS WAS AS FOLLOWS:- THE ASSESSEE IS INTO THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF ELECTROMAGNETS AND IS ALSO AN APPROVED IN- HOUSE R&D UNIT BY DSIR, GOVT. OF INDIA AND ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 35(2AB) OF THE AC T. THE FIRST TIME APPROVAL WAS GRANTED ON 30/06/2014. WHILE FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR THE ENTIRE 12 MONTHS BY MISTAKE. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, WHILE PREPARING THE DOCUMENTS, IT HAD DAWNED THAT THE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO 9 MONTHS FROM 30/06/2014 AND NOT THE ENTIRE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUO MOTO OFFICER, HAD ASKED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RES TO 9 MONTHS. THE ORDER WAS PASSED ACCORDINGLY AND HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, LATER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE FOR AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE WHICH HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS BEEN ACC 2.1 AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY. 3. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. SUNIL SURANA, SUB PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IS BAD IN LAW FOR THE REASON THAT: A) PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED ON THE CHARGE THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE NUMBERS BUT ULTIMATELY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS CONCEALED OF CHARGE MAKES THE LEVY OF PENALTY BAD IN LAW. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: RAMESH PRASAD SAO VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 997/KOL/2011; ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 CIT V. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY B) THE BOOK PROFITS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE THE SAME AND WHEN THERE IS NO ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OR VARIATION TO THE RETURNED INCOME ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES ARE MADE TO THE INCOME THE ACT, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. R ELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELH CIT VS. NALWA SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED REPORTED IN 327 ITR 543 2 THE ASSESSEE IS INTO THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF ELECTROMAGNETS AND IS ALSO HOUSE R&D UNIT BY DSIR, GOVT. OF INDIA AND ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S T. THE FIRST TIME APPROVAL WAS GRANTED ON 30/06/2014. WHILE FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR THE ENTIRE 12 MONTHS BY MISTAKE. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, WHILE PREPARING THE DOCUMENTS, IT DEDUCTION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO 9 MONTHS FROM 30/06/2014 AND NOT THE ENTIRE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUO MOTO , BEFORE BEING DETECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAD ASKED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RES TRICT THE DEDUCTION U/S 35(2AB) TO 9 MONTHS. THE ORDER WAS PASSED ACCORDINGLY AND HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, LATER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE FOR AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE WHICH HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS BEEN ACC EPTE AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. SUNIL SURANA, SUB MITTED THAT, THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IS BAD IN LAW FOR THE REASON THAT: - PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED ON THE CHARGE THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE NUMBERS BUT ULTIMATELY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON THE GROUND THAT EE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE SUBMITTED THAT SUCH CHANGE OF CHARGE MAKES THE LEVY OF PENALTY BAD IN LAW. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: - RAMESH PRASAD SAO VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 997/KOL/2011; ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08, ORDER DT. 03/02/2016. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY [2013] 359 ITR 565 THE BOOK PROFITS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE THE SAME AND WHEN THERE IS NO ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OR VARIATION TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE BOOK PROFITS, JUST BECAUSE CERTAIN ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES ARE MADE TO THE INCOME UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS PROPOSITION ELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NALWA SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED REPORTED IN 327 ITR 543 ITA NO. 2424/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 M/S. SHREE MAGNETS PVT. LTD THE ASSESSEE IS INTO THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF ELECTROMAGNETS AND IS ALSO HOUSE R&D UNIT BY DSIR, GOVT. OF INDIA AND ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S T. THE FIRST TIME APPROVAL WAS GRANTED ON 30/06/2014. WHILE FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR THE ENTIRE 12 MONTHS BY MISTAKE. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, WHILE PREPARING THE DOCUMENTS, IT DEDUCTION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO 9 MONTHS FROM 30/06/2014 AND BEFORE BEING DETECTED BY THE ASSESSING THE DEDUCTION U/S 35(2AB) OF THE ACT TO 9 MONTHS. THE ORDER WAS PASSED ACCORDINGLY AND HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, LATER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE FOR AN INADVERTENT EPTE D. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE MITTED THAT, THE LEVY OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED ON THE CHARGE THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE NUMBERS BUT ULTIMATELY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON THE GROUND THAT OF INCOME. HE SUBMITTED THAT SUCH CHANGE OF CHARGE MAKES THE LEVY OF PENALTY BAD IN LAW. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON RAMESH PRASAD SAO VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 997/KOL/2011; ASSESSMENT [2013] 359 ITR 565 THE BOOK PROFITS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE THE SAME AND WHEN THERE IS NO ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OR VARIATION TO THE OF THE BOOK PROFITS, JUST BECAUSE CERTAIN UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF FOR THIS PROPOSITION I HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NALWA SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED REPORTED IN 327 ITR 543 AND THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF IN ITA NO. 2220/KOL/2013; ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 C) ON FACTS, THE VARIATION IN INCOME WAS DUE TO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 35(2AB) OF THE ACT FOR THE FULL 12 MONTHS INSTEAD OF 9 MONTHS AS THE APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY WAS GRANTED ON 30/06/2014 AND THAT THIS WAS A DEBATABLE ISSUE. IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REASONABLE CAUSE IN MAKING THE CLAIM WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. 4.1. THE LD. D/R, ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT, THE NOTICE/S 274/271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, HA ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE CLAIM THAT CHARGE HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFIED IN SUCH NOTICE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO APPEAR BE SUBMITTED AN EXPLANATION THAT IT WAS DUE TO SCRUTINY THAT THE ASSESSEE CAME FORWARD AND DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME AND HENCE THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IS BAD IN LAW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: 6. THE LD. D/R HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE U/S 115JB OF THE ACT, AS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN OTHER WORDS, NO ADDITION OR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED AND DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN TH HAS BEEN ASSESSED U/S 115JB OF THE ACT FOR UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AS HELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE VS. NALWA SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED (SUPRA). SALASAR STOCK BROKING LIMITED (SUPRA) 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND REITERATED BEFORE US, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION HAS FINALLY BEEN ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB AND THE LD. D.R. HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS POSITION. IN THE CASE OF NALWA SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT EVEN THOUGH CONCEALMENT IS DETECTED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME 3 OF THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SALASAR STOCK BROKING LIMITED IN ITA NO. 2220/KOL/2013; ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, ORDER DT. 19 ON FACTS, THE VARIATION IN INCOME WAS DUE TO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 35(2AB) OF THE ACT FOR THE FULL 12 MONTHS INSTEAD OF 9 MONTHS AS THE APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY WAS GRANTED ON 30/06/2014 AND THAT THIS WAS A DEBATABLE S SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REASONABLE CAUSE IN MAKING THE CLAIM WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. THE LD. D/R, ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT, THE NOTICE/S 274/271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, HA VE NOT BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE CLAIM THAT CHARGE HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFIED IN SUCH NOTICE CANNOT BE HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO APPEAR BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED AN EXPLANATION THAT IT WAS DUE TO SCRUTINY THAT THE ASSESSEE CAME FORWARD AND DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME AND HENCE THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: -. THE LD. D/R HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE BOOK PROFITS ASSESSEE U/S 115JB OF THE ACT, AS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN OTHER WORDS, NO ADDITION OR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE BOOK PROFITS, COMPUTED AND DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN TH U/S 115JB OF THE ACT FOR PROFITS ONLY AND NOT ON PROFITS AND GAINS UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AS HELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE VS. NALWA SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED (SUPRA). THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SALASAR STOCK BROKING LIMITED (SUPRA) AT PARA 4 HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND REITERATED BEFORE US, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER RATION HAS FINALLY BEEN ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB AND THE LD. D.R. HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS POSITION. IN THE CASE OF NALWA SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT THOUGH CONCEALMENT IS DETECTED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ITA NO. 2424/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 M/S. SHREE MAGNETS PVT. LTD DCIT VS. SALASAR STOCK BROKING LIMITED 06, ORDER DT. 19 /04/2016. ON FACTS, THE VARIATION IN INCOME WAS DUE TO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 35(2AB) OF THE ACT FOR THE FULL 12 MONTHS INSTEAD OF 9 MONTHS AS THE APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY WAS GRANTED ON 30/06/2014 AND THAT THIS WAS A DEBATABLE S SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REASONABLE CAUSE IN MAKING THE THE LD. D/R, ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND VE NOT BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE CLAIM THAT CHARGE HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFIED IN SUCH NOTICE CANNOT BE HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) AND FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED AN EXPLANATION THAT IT WAS DUE TO SCRUTINY THAT THE ASSESSEE CAME FORWARD AND DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME AND HENCE THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BOOK PROFITS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 115JB OF THE ACT, AS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN OTHER WORDS, TO THE BOOK PROFITS, COMPUTED AND DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN TH IS YEAR ON PROFITS AND GAINS UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AS HELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND REITERATED BEFORE US, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER RATION HAS FINALLY BEEN ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB AND THE LD. D.R. HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS POSITION. IN THE CASE OF NALWA SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT THOUGH CONCEALMENT IS DETECTED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AS PER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, CONCEALMENT PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED WHEN THE ULTIMATE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB. THE R IN THE CASE OF NALWA SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED THUS IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CANCELL SECTION 271(1)(C) BY RELYING ON THE SAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING TO OUR NOTICE ANY DECISION OF THE HONBLE JU DIFFERENT VIEW THAN ONE TAKEN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NALWA SONS INVESTMENT LIMITED (SUPRA). WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CANCELLING THE PE 271(1)(C) AND DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 7. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN THEREIN, WE QUASH THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AS THE SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE SD/- [ S. S. GODARA ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 25.11.2020 {SC SPS} COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. SHREE MAGNETS PVT. LTD 81, SODEPUR BARASAT ROAD MURAGACHA POST JUGBERIA KOLKATA 700 110 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(1), KOLKATA 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 4 AS PER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, CONCEALMENT PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED WHEN THE ULTIMATE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB. THE R ATIO OF THIS DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NALWA SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED THUS IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CANCELL ING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) BY RELYING ON THE SAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING TO OUR NOTICE ANY DECISION OF THE HONBLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OR HONBLE SUPREME COURT TAKING A DIFFERENT VIEW THAN ONE TAKEN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NALWA SONS INVESTMENT LIMITED (SUPRA). WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CANCELLING THE PE NALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AND DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN THEREIN, WE QUASH THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AS THE SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE 25 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 20 20 [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/S. SHREE MAGNETS PVT. LTD 5(1), KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 2424/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 M/S. SHREE MAGNETS PVT. LTD AS PER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, CONCEALMENT PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED WHEN THE ULTIMATE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF BOOK ATIO OF THIS DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NALWA SONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED THUS IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) BY RELYING ON THE SAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING TO OUR NOTICE ANY RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OR HONBLE SUPREME COURT TAKING A DIFFERENT VIEW THAN ONE TAKEN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NALWA SONS INVESTMENT LIMITED (SUPRA). WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. NALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN THEREIN, WE QUASH THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 20 . SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES