Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 430 - ITAT MUMBAILevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – Claim of deduction u/s 80HHC – Held that:- The claim of deduction was based on unaudited accounts, because of which the claim of deduction at Venniar facility was unduly high, in its accounts, is also to be addressed - The issue, which is common with both the parties is, once the unduly high profit and deduction was brought to the notice of the assessee, was rectified immediately and rightful claim was made – the contention of the assessee is accepted that even a multinational accounting firm, having presence across the globe could end up in making silly mistake as decided in Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata - I [2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] - undesired and unwanted human anomaly cannot push the assessee into the field of penal mens rea - Hence the penalty, as levied by the revenue authorities merit to be deleted. The AO committed mistake in not writing the words "80HH”, while ordering initiation of penalty proceedings - This decision is not quid-pro-quo, but is based on the fact that the entire assessment order is based on denial of deduction u/s 80HH - Simply to accept the lapse committed by the AO cannot comprehend that the AO did not initiate penal proceedings – the order of the CIT(A) is to be set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
|