TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We also find that assessee is a regular income-tax payee and books of accounts are audited u/s 44AB of the Act and income has been declared. Loss on sale of fixed asset at ₹ 2,07,551/- was shown in audited profit and loss account and this impugned loss has been the result of sale of fixed asset and so this transaction certainly has travelled in the books of account and got placed in the audited financial statement and, therefore, there cannot be any concealment of particulars in this case. We also find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT ) has dealt similar issue and while adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 30.08.2009 and duly served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings it was observed by the Assessing Officer that assessee has debited an amount of ₹ 2,07,551/- in the P L a/c under the head loss on sale of assets. However, in the computation of income loss on sales of fixed asset was not added back to the profit because sale of asset is not an allowable expenditure. On being asked to clarify the same, assessee submitted that due to oversight the same was not considered while filing the income-tax return and we agree for the disallowance of loss of ₹ 2,07,551/-. Accordingly assessment was framed by disallowing the loss of ₹ 2,07,551/- as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome (income admitted for the year under consideration being ₹ 10,49,970/-). Her books of accounts are audited and she is having the services of professional. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contentions of the AR. None of the case laws relied on is applicable to the facts of the instant case. I hold that appellant furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is in order. Impugned penalty order is confirmed. 4. Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. AR further submitted that loss on sale of fixed asset was clearly shown in the audited profit and loss account and due to oversight on the part of the person preparing computation of income this amount of loss on s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was not added back to the profit as per profit and loss account resulting in showing total income less by ₹ 2,07,551/-. On coming across this fact during assessment proceedings itself assessee accepted the mistake and agreed for adding the amount of ₹ 2,07,551/- to the total income. Assessing Officer went ahead imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at ₹ 70,550/- for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We also find that assessee is a regular income-tax payee and books of accounts are audited u/s 44AB of the Act and income of ₹ 10,49,970/- has been declared. Loss on sale of fixed asset at ₹ 2,07,551/- was shown in audited profit and loss account and this impugned loss h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer seems to have made a mistake in overlooking the contents of the Tax Audit Report. 19. The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assessee concealing its income. There is also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. It appears to us that all that has happened in the present case is that through a bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return, failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. This can only be described as a human error which we are all prone to make. The calibre and expertise of the assessee has little or nothing to do with the inadvertent error. That the assessee should have been careful cannot be doubted, but the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
