TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present controversy is concerned, it relates to an inadvertent error on the part of the assessee in not adding back a sum of ₹ 13,70,387/- representing exchange rate difference on repayment of Term loan capitalized to the cost of assets in terms of section 43A of the Act but the same was not added back to the total income, as it was already debited in the Profit & Loss Account. The circumstances explained by the assessee, which have not been doubted by the Revenue, clearly establish that it is a case of an inadvertent mistake and not a deliberate attempt to conceal the income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year under consideration, it filed a return of income declaring a loss of ₹ 23,92,146/-, which was subject to scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 24/11/2011, whereby the loss was assessed at ₹ 10,06,419/-. The difference between the reported and the assessed loss was on account of disallowance of ₹ 13,70,387/-, representing exchange rate difference on repayment of Term loan capitalized to the cost of assets. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer held the assessee guilty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the aforesaid disallowance on the ground that it represented concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, a penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the loss has been carried forward and setoff against profits in the subsequent year and only on the balance of such profits assessee had claimed deduction under section 10AA of the Act in the subsequent year. It was, therefore, contended that it was a mere inadvertent mistake and such an error does not give rise to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In support, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd.,33 taxman.com 277(Bom). 5. On the otherhand, Ld. Departmental Representative has pointed out that an undisputed error had been made in the return of income, which increased the loss to ₹ 23,19,146/-, as against the correct loss of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
