TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of total income. Under those facts, this cannot be considered as wilful attempt made to evade payment of taxes and at best, it could be termed as a human error which we are all prone to make. In this case, on perusal of facts, we find that although the assessee has disclosed all facts in respect of those two items of expenses, but failed to add back in the statement of total income, while filing return of income. The said mistake has been rectified immediately after noticing during the course of assessment proceedings by filing revised statement of total income. Under these facts and circumstances, the AO was incorrect in coming to the conclusion that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of donation paid & STT which warrants levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A No.386/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 16-11-2018 - Shri Mahavir Singh (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) For the Appellant : Shri Abi Rama Kartikeyan For the Respondent : Shri S.C. Tiwari ORDER PER G MANJUNATHA, AM : This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-5, Mumbai dated 06-10-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c). The AO, after considering the submissions of the assessee and also by following the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors vs UOI (2008) 306 ITR 277 held that the additions made in the quantum assessment having attained finality and such addition has been made after examination of books of account, therefore, there is no merit in the arguments of the assessee that it is an inadvertent error while computing total income. The evidence against the assessee would not have come to light but for the enquiries conducted in the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings. Therefore, he opined that it is a fit case for imposition of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and hence levied penalty of ₹ 15,51,146 which is 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), assessee reiterated its submissions made before the AO to argue that there is no question of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of addition made by the AO towa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Administrative and other expenses claiming the donation and Security transaction as expenses. However, in the computation of income appellant failed to disallow the same. For this appellant states that this is a bonafide and inadvertent error which they have rectified by filing revised computation during the assessment proceedings. Appellant relies on Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. v CIT Kolkatta in Civil appeal No. 6924 2012 where it is held as under: Contents of 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. All that happened in present case is that through bonafide and inadvertent error failed to add provision for gratuity to its total income. This can only be described as a human error which we are all prone to make. The caliber 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 absence of due care, in a case such as the present, does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The AO has accepted the revised statement of total income filed by assessee vide letter dated 27-01-2015, but initiated penalty proceedings on those two items for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. When the primary facts have been disclosed in the return filed for the relevant year and there is an omission to add back certain disallowance, the same cannot be considered as willful attempt made to evade payment of tax which warrants levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has disclosed primary facts in respect of donation paid and STT paid in its return of income filed for the relevant assessment year. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee failed to add back donation paid amounting to ₹ 50 lakhs and STT paid amounting to ₹ 19,891 in the statement of total income. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee has filed revised statement of total income rectifying the said mistakes before completion of assessment proceedings. The reason given by the assessee for not disallowing those two items in the statement of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
