TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 (12) TMI 571 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ]wherein held that the assessee should first show by cogent and reliable evidence that there was neither concealment of particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income in order to repel penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of this, we have no hesitation in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided against assessee - I.T.A. No. 1387/Mds. /2014 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2016 - Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member And Shri G. Pavan Kumar, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Mr. S. P. Chidambaram, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. A. B. Koli, JCIT, D.R ORDER Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai passed under section 271(1)(c) dated 24.01.2014 for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The only issue in this appeal is with regard to confirm the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture/trading of flavor essences, aromatic com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs (P) Ltd v. DCIT (80 lTD 202) (iii) The mistake has happened since the senior manager in-charge of accounts has resigned and a new manager took over during the previous year relevant to this assessment year Therefore, the claim made by the appellant is neither willful nor intentional. The inadvertent claim of gratuity was due to change in the appellant s accounting department and mistake by the new manager which is not wilfil or deliberate. (iv) The ld.A.R relied on the decision of Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sidartha Enterprises reported in (2009) 184 Taxman 460 and the Apex Court in the case of Price-Water house Copers P Ltd Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306. 5. The ld.D.R submitted that In this case, the assessee has given two explanations for double claim of gratuity payment (i) that this has happened inadvertentIy (ii) it has happened due to resignation of senior manager in-charge of accounts Except stating as above, the appellant has not given any further details to prove its point. How far the old / new senior manager in-charge of accounts is responsible for preparation I checking of final accounts is not known. In the absence of the erstwhile sen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e return which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous . In the instant case when the appellant has made a double claim of the expenditure, whether it deliberately indented to have double tax benefit or not is not material but a wrong claim is wrong claim from the return of income point of view which means the assessee has a gain and revenue has a loss. The AO has also made an observation that had it not been detected by the revenue in due course there would have been a revenue loss to that extent . Whether it is an advertent or inadvertent a mistake is a mistake which has the audacity to cause a revenue loss, without the cover of mens rea, therefore, it will attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The other decisions relied on by the AO also proves his stand point. Further, the ld.D.R argued that the decisions relied on by the Id.AR are quite distinguishable. In the case of CIT v. Durr India P Ltd delivered by Madras High Court (supra), the court while holding that mens rea is not essential, the claim of the appellant should be bonafide. In the instant case except saying that the erstwhile senior manager has resigned, the ld.AR has not furnished any de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been made by the assessee. There is no base for such claim. Being so, in our opinion such an unadmissible claim could not have been claimed ad deduction by inadvertence for the second time. The said plea has also been repealed by Supreme Court in the case of MAK DATA P. LTD. v. CIT reported in [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) as the assessee should first show by cogent and reliable evidence that there was neither concealment of particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In our opinion, the plea taken by the assessee is only too general and does not give any acceptable explanation for such unsustainable computation of the income. The inaccurate claim of the assessee was found by the assessing authority only during the scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. The judgement of the Supreme Court in Price-Water house Copers P Ltd Vs. CIT (supra) is distinguishable on the facts of the present case, as we find that Supreme Court in that case held that the tax audit report did not suggest concealment of income and on that basis a finding was given that the assessee did not furnish inaccurate particulars because in the tax audit report filed along with the return, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
