Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: form 3cd :: VAT Audit :: cpt :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: TDS :: due date for vat payment :: VAT RATES :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: empanelment :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: articles on VAT and GST in India
 
 
From the Courts »
  Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

M/s Crown Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd., B-22, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4) New Delhi
September, 26th 2014
         IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
               DELHI BENCH `B', NEW DELHI
        Before Sh. I. C. Sudhir, JM And Sh. J. S. Reddy, AM
           ITA No. 4322/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07
M/s Crown Advertising & Marketing Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4)
(P) Ltd., B-22, Maharani Bagh,       New Delhi
New Delhi
(APPELLANT)                          (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AAACC4193K
                  Assessee by : Smt. Indra Bansal, CA
                  Revenue by : Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 30.7.2014       Date of Pronouncement : 24.9.2014

                                ORDER
Per J. S Reddy, AM:

     This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of
the CIT(A) dated 5.7.2011 for the assessment year 2006-07.

2.   The assessee is a company. It filed its return of income for the
assessment year 2006-07 on 17.11.2006 declaring income of Rs.
24,290/-. Admittedly, the assessee has not computed income u/s 115JB
of the Act, though it was liable to pay tax on book profits. The Assessing
Officer computed Book profit u/s 115JB and levied tax. As the assessee
company has not disclosed its liability u/s 115JB of the Act in its return
of income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied. At para 9, the Assessing
                                     2                         ITA No. 4322/Del/2011
                                                 Crown Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd.

Officer rejected the submissions filed by the assessee that the mistake
was bonafide, inadvertent etc.




3.    On appeal, the First Appellate Authority confirmed the order
levying penalty by observing as follows:

     "3.2 Now adverting to the present case of the appellant it is
     seen that the appellant has not computed its book profit as
     required mandatorily u/s 115JB of the I. T Act. The appellant
     has also failed to even get a report from accountant as required
     u/s 115JB(4) of the Act. The ld. AR has submitted that this was
     done due to the ignorance of law. This contention of the
     appellant has not acceptable. It is seen that the books of
     accounts of the appellant has been audited by a qualified CA.
     Who are supposed to be expert in tax? Therefore, it cannot be
     said that the appellant company was not having assistance of
     the professionals. Although the books of accounts were audited
     the case of the appellant company, it is difficult to believe that
     the appellant company could not have got a report from an
     accountant as required u/s 115JB. From the facts of the case it
     appears that the book profit was not computed deliberately to
     avoid MAT on the capital gains. During the course of
     assessment, this facts was detected by the A.O. while computing
     the profit vis-à-vis normal profit of the appellant company. It
     was noticed by the A.O that the appellant has not filed its
     computation of book profit. When it has pointed out to the
     appellant company by the A.O the appellant merely agreed to
     pay tax on the MAT profit and subsequently paid the tax after
     completion of assessment. It is also difficult to believe that the
     CA would not have advised to the appellant company about the
     mandatory nature of section 115JB. If the MAT computation
     would have been computed u/s 115JB(2) i.e. as per Part II and
     Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, then the inclusion
                                        3                    ITA No. 4322/Del/2011
                                               Crown Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd.

     of capital gains for the purposes of book profit would have been
     imminent. With the intention of avoiding the inclusion of
     capital gains for the purposes of book profit, the appellant
     company has not computed the book profit. As per section
     115JB as per Clause 2(b) of Part II of Schedule VI to the
     Companies Act, capital gains to the included for the purposes
     of the computation of book profit."

4.    Aggrieved assessee is an appeal before us. The ld. Counsel for the
assessee Smt. Indra Bansal submitted that the assessee had committed an
inadvertent mistake while filing its return of income and due to this
mistake did not offer to tax capital gains u/s 115JB or paid tax on the
same. She relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs CIT 161 Taxman 221. She also relied on the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Petro
Products 322 ITR 158 (SC) and in the case of Pricewaterhouse Coopers
Pvt. Ltd Vs CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC).

5.    The ld. Departmental Representative Smt. Parwinder Kaur relied
on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that this omission is
not an inadvertent mistake and the explanation given by the assessee is
not bonafide. She further relied on the decision by the Jurisdictional
High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. 327
ITR 510 (Del) and argued that the proposition laid down in that case are
applicable to the facts of this case.
                                    4                        ITA No. 4322/Del/2011
                                               Crown Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd.

6.    Rival contentions heard. On a careful consideration of all the facts
and circumstances of the case we hold as follows. The contentions of the
assessee before the ld. CIT(A), which is contained in the letter dated
14.10.2010 is as follows:
"Thus, the action of the assessee in not filing of the return of the (Sic)
MAT was due to negligence and ignorance rather than any intention to
conceal or under state of his (Sic) income."




7.   Admittedly, the assessee has not taken into account the mandatory
requirements of sec. 115JB while filing its return of income nor did it
pay tax thereon. In our considered view the explanation given by the
assessee that it was an inadvertent mistake cannot be accepted. The
explanation is not bonafide. In fact, the assessee admits that this lapse
occurred due to negligence. Thus, in our view the propositions laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products
(supra) or in the case of Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd (supra) are
not applicable to the facts of this case. Similarly, the other case relied
upon by the ld. Counsel of the assessee is factually distinguishable. This
is a clear case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, in
our view the First Appellate Authority has rightly confirmed the penalty
levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c). While coming to this
decision, we draw strength from the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in the case of Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (supra)
                                               5                               ITA No. 4322/Del/2011
                                                                 Crown Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd.

8.      In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 24/9/2014.


                     Sd/-                                                       Sd/-
         (I. C. Sudhir)                                         (J. S. Reddy)
      JUDICIAL MEMBER                                      ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 24/9/2014
*Subodh*

Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5.DR: ITAT
                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                        Date
                                                                     Initial
1.     Draft dictated on                            19.09.2014                   PS
2.     Draft placed before author                   22.09.2014                   PS
3.     Draft proposed & placed before the second                                 JM/AM
       member
4.     Draft discussed/approved by Second Member.                                JM/AM
5.     Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS                                      PS/PS
6.     Kept for pronouncement on                                                 PS
7.     File sent to the Bench Clerk                                              PS
8.     Date on which file goes to the AR
9.     Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
10.    Date of dispatch of Order.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
E-catalogue online catalogue E-brochure online brochure online product catalogue online product catalogue e-catalogue Indi

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions