TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mere clerical in nature, not deliberate and no element of mens rea is present, also, does not hold any ground as it has been rightly held by the learned ACMM that no sincere efforts were put in by the petitioner after detection of the alleged mistake by filing the revised return immediately thereafter. It is a manifest procedure that before filing of the Income Tax return for the assessment year 2007-2008 by the petitioner, the same is scrutinized, firstly, by the auditors of the company. Secondly, by the directors of the company before endorsing their signatures on the final Balance Sheet. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a mere accounting mistake. Order of ACMM imposing sentence of fine confirmed. - CRL.REV.P 16/2015 - - - Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hallenged by the accused in this court, which was dismissed thereafter. Consequently, the complaint was filed by the respondent before learned ACMM wherein vide order 25.06.2014, the respondent no. 3 was acquitted but the company/respondent no. 1 was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 266C and 277 of the IT Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of ₹ 15,000/- each i.e. ₹ 30,000/-. Hence, the present petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the mistake committed in the accounts book for the assessment year 2007- 2008 was a sheer mistake made by the accounts clerk of the company and the same was not in the knowledge of the petitioner, Director or its Chartered Accountants; that while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l mistake and the same was suo moto corrected by the company in the balance sheet of subsequent year, i.e 2008-2009 and was informed about it to the Assessment Officer(AO) vide letter dated 08.12.2009. Perusal of the record shows that after the assessment of the Balance Sheet of the year 2007-2008 by the assessing Officer, two order sheet entry dated 04.09.2009 and 23.11.2009 was made by the AO whereby the AO had asked the petitioner to explain the claim of depreciation on building as shown in the said balance sheet for the assessment year 2007- 2008. The said order sheet entries are proved by PW-2/Sh.S.K. Mehra(IT Department) in his cross examination wherein he has stated that It is the order sheet entry dated 23.11.2009 Ex.PW2/2 in whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner sent the letter to the AO by stating that :- This mistake came to notice of the auditors next year while preparing and certifying the balance sheet and the tax audit report relating to assessment year 2008-2009. In the balance sheet for that year land has been segregated and appears as the distinct item in Schedule of the fixed assets. In the tax audit report and in the income tax return also depreciation has been claimed only on the building. It is therefore, prayed that depreciation on building may kindly be allowed after excluding the cost of land namely ₹ 3,18,00,000/- .. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mistake in the balance sheet was suo moto rectified in the balance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
