Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 Chandigarh v. M/S International Institute Of Neuro Sciences & Oncology Ltd

Gurbax Singh 2017.08.19 11:46

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH ITA No. 102 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.7.2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh ......Appellant Vs.

M/s International Institute of Neuro Sciences and Oncology Limited .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant- revenue.

Mr. B.M.Monga, Advodcate with Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the respondent-assessee.

Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.

 This order shall dispose of ITA No.102 and 105 of 2016 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, both the appeals are against the common order dated 12.10.2015, Annexure A.4, passed by the Tribunal in cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue. The facts are being extracted from ITA No.102 of 2016.

2.

ITA No.102 of 2016 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated 12.10.2015, Annexure A.4, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal"), in ITA No.1242/Chd/2012 for the assessment year 2005-06, claiming following substantial questions of law:-    

          !"#$
   %&   $'  %$($(#( '%& )*+,


 #($ '

 #' 

   *+,      %$( ) #$& .       / %(#$  $   %  #(

'

 $%&     / %(#$  #0 %  *+, 
/ 1 2    

   $. $ 
. ' $'%$( $&  

  


- 3*456   .'$($ /% #(

 ' /%

  2

 * # 7   
  $$.' 

$ 7   $. & # $ #(& 86     

    !"#$
 ' $'%$( $&  

 


4* 9-956 #(

'

 9    

 ( *6  .   

 

$  % /

 % 3  *  #  44 *   % %&  

&  

 ( *6      #(  :  3

& %$ *2     

     !"#$
   '  $'  %$( $&   

  &. %& ) 1; 
/  1 2 4  .   $&       & ( &$&  
 (# 

 .  %$  94 4      9  -  

 
 43 --56#(0'&

 ) # 7 $( 

'

$& %$( 
- 56&   34  $$.'

 86     <$( $&   

  
 

4* 9-956

9     $ %  =)> <$($& 

 
 4 ---56  %(  ' 

>  <$($&  $$. 
* 

*56 .' $  %  
 9 3 * 56  %$  (   %  %$

 .' $   % '  
 4-*56$> & <$($&  $$. 
* * 49156 .' $ %  
 4

* 56  %$  ( 

 7 %   .' $   % '  
 3- 39156$> & <$( $&   $$.  
 94  56 .' $ %

  .'$  % ' $> & <$($& 

 


56 9  4 > & <$(  

  
  3- 156     %$("

 #   %& 

5

9 /   . ) 4

&  > & <$(  

  
  -* --56     

%    '  %

#(

'

 

%  %%$# ;

 
/ %%$ ?;
 @A    -   /  4   ;
  %$( $$. %%$#( $'%$($&  %

    & 

& &  ' %

      &

& 

 .  #& 

 $ %%$ # # $# $&  $      *$$. %%$ $ #(





$ #(& $ '.

*+,  %$( )   $ #$& B$. %$ C

'   
 

   

     




49 4 93 9. . $ 

&'# %&  )*+,  %$( )  $ #$& 

 $$. '

$ ! %%$ #(&  9 & $  $ %  *  %( 

        %%$    .  

    $#$  %$(  )

       %    &

$ $$.   %$$( . #'/ )*+, 

  $' 6'7 ' ' $&( %$( ) ./. %  # #0%   )*+, .

#( ; 

   

% $ '%$( ) . $&#$ (     /%  $  #(  

  $& # &  

86 "5. The issue relating to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act where tax was paid on the basis of book profits determined under Section 115JB of the Act was considered by

* the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Limited, (2010) 327 ITR 543. It was held that where the book profits were determined under section 115JB of the Act any amount of expenses claimed would not render the assessee liable to penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act on account of false claim of expenses. The relevant observations of the Delhi High Court read thus:- "The question, however, in the present case, would be, as to whether furnishing of such wrong particulars had any effect on the amount of tax sought to be evaded. Under the scheme of the Act, the total income of the assessee is first computed under the normal provisions of the Act and tax payable on such total income is compared with the prescribed percentage of the "book profits" computed under section 115JB of the Act.

The higher of the two amounts is regarded as total income and tax is payable with reference to such total income. If the tax payable under the normal provisions is higher, such amount is the total income of the assessee, otherwise, "book profits" are deemed as the total income of the appellant in terms of section 115JB of the Act."

It was also recorded:- "No doubt, there was concealment but that had its repercussions only when the assessment was done under the normal procedure. The assessment as per the normal procedure was, however, not acted upon. On the contrary, it is the deemed income assessed under section 115JB of the Act which has become the basis of assessment as it was higher of the two. Tax is thus paid on the income assessed under section 115JB of the Act. Hence when the computation was made under section 115JB of the Act, the aforesaid concealment had no role to play and was totally irrelevant. Therefore, the concealment did not lead to tax evasion at all."

We are fully in agreement with the view expressed in the aforesaid pronouncement."

- &'      %      %

$   %

#(# $ .

. %$ # # $ #$

/ #

*+,  . # # $

 %$  $ (   / .  $&   %&   )*+, B$. %$ C

'  ; 

   

%.. $ 

&'# %& 

)*+,  %$( )   $ #$& 

  $$.  '

$    /'  '

   #(  ;
   $&$#$ # $$

  C

'

   

% . %%$#$ 



$%$($& #(

'

 . $  $& '

 #(# $ 

86 3  &    $  % &  #  %  %

'

     #$.      $ &$#$    : 

  $ #($  $ 

.



 '%%$$$ ' 
 '   7        $& 

 (  .. #(; ', 


9- 9 
 9 1    D&  %%$ 

  %$  '&'

  


.

   '

$    # %     $ ).# ' . $

 %    . $ $'      

- &   %%$ 

   

*+,        $ . #(  !"#$ + 

$!';  < C# !(!';         

     

% 

$(%%$#$ 

!"#$ < C# !(!';  $ %    =$ !' ;        $. )
&   E

% .#(    # $  

8 FG   
/ 1   $     

    %    $%&  /%(#$

$    %   .  % #  %'  #0%  %  )*+,  ' .   ' $ /  %(#$ .   

 $ 
  / %(#$ $%&  ' 

  $

 . #0%       $   

  ) *+,        %     .$%

 $



  #( $'$  $(  #0 % 

*+,  

 

 *+,      $ %&    /   %     

*+,  $ . $ & $%$( . $ $ /&    %$(  # %    # $$.  

  '

$%& " *
 &.    #&  .    

 #' 

*+,  %$( ) #$& 
&.   $ %$( $&  #(  

' 



 #( $ H

3 E  $ &  ##$ . ($$'$(%& ( '

 #(;
  .$$  # $.' #( ; 



# $  $. ; 7 $( #%%$ 

 

     

   

    %0'5  %#$