Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2024 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 115 - HC - Income TaxLevy of Penalty u/s 271 - certain expenses which were not allowable expenses under the Act were not added back to the total income in the computation of income and disallowance of such expenses has been mentioned by the auditors in the tax audit report - error on the part of the assessee was detected during the course of assessment proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Act on scrutiny by the AO - before ITAT affidavit of Managing Director of the assessee was filed stating that return was filed by the then CFO, who since left the company and migrated to United Kingdom, who made an inadvertent error of not considering the disallowances which were mentioned in the tax audit report while uploading the return of income HELD THAT:- ITAT in its order pronounced [2017 (3) TMI 1940 - ITAT MUMBAI] as impugned in this appeal, has come to a factual finding that there is no intention on the part of assessee to conceal the income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income. It has also accepted the explanation that the CFO was entrusted with the filing of return and the CFO made a mistake in not properly uploading the return by filling up the return with the disallowances which were already reported by the auditors in the tax audit report. ITAT has come to a factual finding that there was no intention of furnishing any inaccurate particulars or concealment of income as the facts undoubtedly suggest so. In a case that was before the Apex Court in the matter of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd. [2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] Apex Court set aside the penalty proceedings in view of the findings of fact that the tax audit report was filed a/w return which would indicate that assessee had made a computation error in its return of income. In the case at hand also, the tax report has been filed along with the return of income. Therefore, we would agree with the ITAT that it was only a mistake while uploading the return of income in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Decided against revenue.
|