TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el the penalty regarding the addition - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 815/Chd/2015 - - - Dated:- 16-3-2016 - SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT, AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. Sarabjit Garg For The Respondent : Sh. Manjit Singh ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) Ludhiana dated 31.8.2015 in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in declaring the appeal of the assessee against ground No.2 of appeal against penalty u/s 271(1)(c) infructuous, despite the fact that Assessing officer has already deleted the said addition. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in declaring the appeal of the assessee against ground No.3 of appeal against penalty u/s 271(1)(c) infructuous, despite the fact that ao has already deleted the said addition. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing officer by the Tribunal to determine the facts of the case and to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. It is apparent from the records that the Assessing officer has already deleted this addition. Since the addition of ₹ 6,95,000/- has already been deleted by the Assessing officer, therefore, there remains no basis for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is well settled law that where the additions made in the assessment order, on the basis of which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore, in such as case, no such penalty can survive and the same is liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, we cancel the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the disallowance of ₹ 6,95,000/- made on account of exchange difference. Accordingly, we allow ground No.1 of the appeal. 6. The Assessing officer has imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the addition made on account of capitalization of upfront fee and processing fee. The Assessing officer made addition of ₹ 2,82,805/- after allowing depreciation of ₹ 22,930/-. The Assessing officer has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile preparing Form 3CD of this year, the person concerned in auditor s office, copied data from Form 3CD for assessment year 2005-06. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in the Form 3CD for assessment year 2005-06 at Sr. No.21, the auditor has mentioned that ₹ 16,55,846/- was a liability u/s 43B disallowed during the earlier years and paid during assessment year 2005-06. Unfortunately, after copying data from the documents relating to assessment year 2005-06, concern person inadvertently omitted to change the particulars against Sr. No.21, submitted the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Unfortunately, the person, who made the computation of income for filing income tax return of the assessee, claimed the deduction for bonus on the basis of Form 3CDG. Shri Sarabjit Garg, Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide its letter dated 11.11.2008 suo moto without any detection of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the submitted as under:- Bonus for assessment year 2004-05:- The deduction for bonus of ₹ 16,55,146/- has been inadvertently claimed, because of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 11.11.2008, before the finalization of the assessment, suo moto without detection of any concealment or otherwise the assessee brought to the notice of the Assessing officer that the deduction for bonus of ₹ 16,55,846/- has been inadvertently claimed because of mistake in Form 3CD. It appears that both the authorities below have not correctly appreciated the explanation of the assessee. We find that the facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the facts of the case are rather peculiar and somewhat unique. The assessee is undoubtedly a reputed firm and has great expertise available with it. Notwithstanding this, it is possible that even the assessee could make a silly mistake and indeed this has been acknowledged both by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court. 18. The fact that the tax audit report was filed along with the return and that it unequivocally stated that the provision for payment was not allowable under section 40A(7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
