TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso add that while examining the explanation of the assessee, one has to see is whether the explanation is an explanation acceptable to a fact finding authority and that while “an assessee is not to prove the explanation to the hilt positively but, as a matter of fact, materials must be brought on record to show that what he says is reasonably valid. See COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BIHAR VERSUS NATHULAL AGARWALA AND SONS [1985 (3) TMI 57 - PATNA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1301/Ahd/2014 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2018 - Pramod Kumar AM And Mahavir Prasad JM For The Appellant : Rajdeep Singh For The Respondent : Arti N Shah ORDER Per Pramod Kumar, AM: 1. By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer has challenged correctness of the learned CIT(A) s order dated 6th February 2014 upholding imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2004-05. 2. Grievances raised by the appellant are as follows:- 1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of ₹ 20.39 lacs levied u/s 271(1)(c) despite the fact that the corresponding quantum addition was ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred an appeal against this issue. This indicates that the assessee has agreed to furnish inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars after unpaid interest not offered by the assessee. The assessee has to offer the same. It is pertinent to note here that in the present order clear findings have been made with respect to the inaccuracy, error and falsity of details filed by the assessee company in his return of income, thus, the present order is very-much in accordance with the position of Law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the present case. It has been clearly laid down in the case of A.M. Shah vs. CIT (discussed above) that Every figure in the return which is set opposite to the item of income is a particular income, whether the figure is one which is stated independently of anything else that appears in the return or the documents accompanying it or whether it is something derived from other figures elsewhere stated in such return or documents. False result may be produced by the falsity of one or more of the constituent items in the return. The words 'inaccurate particulars' would cover falsity in the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2006 u/s 143(3) disallowance u/s 43B was made. No appeal was preferred by the appellant against the said disallowance. As seen from the penalty order, A.O. observed that in the Annexure to audit report it was stated that there was default in repayment of dues to financial institutions; as seen from the balance sheet the unpaid interest to Gujarat Industrial Corporation as on 31-03-2004 was ₹ 1,22,61,286/- which included interest of ₹ 56,85,881/- pertaining to the year under consideration; no explanation was furnished in response to the showcause notice; therefore the said sum was added to the total income u/s 43B and therefore penalty was being levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4.3 The contentions of the Ld. A.R. are that the appellant had admitted loss of over ₹ 2.25 crores; even after the disallowance u/s 43B the loss determined was over ₹ 1.68 crores; the facts and figures of the interest payable to GIG were duly declared in clause 21B of Annexure-IV to the audit report; however, due to inadvertent human error it was not added in the computation of income; appellant company's business was closed down subsequently; accumula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t s judgment in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT [(2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC)] wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows:- 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) of the Act indicates that the assessee made a computation error in its return of income. Apart from the fact that the assessee did not notice the error, it was not even noticed even by the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment order. In that sense, even the Assessing 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
