TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars. In our view, the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court would come to the help of the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, we hold that the imposition of penalty on the assessee is not justified. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.878/Bang/2019 - - - Dated:- 21-10-2020 - Shri George George K., Judicial Member And Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri D.S. Sundar Rajan, D.R. ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 18.3.2019 pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein he did not strike down inapplicable portion. 3. In the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted that the mistake was committed inadvertently while preparing return of income. It was also submitted that the addition has been made only in the book profit computed u/s 115JB of the Act and hence there is no loss of revenue. The A.O. did not accept the explanations given by the assessee. He took the view that the assessee has intentionally concealed income/furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The A.O. also expressed the view that the assessee had the benefit of audit report obtained in form No.29B of the Act while filing return of income. He noticed that the audit report was obtained on 3.9.2011 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Profit and Loss account at Part A P L . Hence the profit before tax amount was erroneously reported at ₹ 8,49,857/- at item 43 in Part A P L , instead of the correct amount of ₹ 1,52,18,851/-. 6. The Ld A.R further submitted that the computation of book profit u/s 115JB is to be reported in Schedule MAT . The software automatically adopts the Profit before tax amount shown in item 43 in Part-A P L . Accordingly, the software also adopted the figure of ₹ 8,49,857/- as net profit figure and accordingly, the book profit was also arrived at the same figure. 7. The Ld A.R submitted that the return of income was filed on 30-09-2011. As per the provisions of sec.115JB, the assessee has also obtained an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee. Accordingly, he submitted that the penalty was rightly confirmed by Ld CIT(A). With regard to the various legal contentions, the Ld D.R placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A), who had rejected all the legal contentions by a speaking order. 9. We heard rival contentions and perused the record. We notice that the assessee is a private limited company and accordingly, its accounts were audited under Companies Act. The audited profit and loss account disclosed net profit before tax at ₹ 1,52,18,851/-. The audit report obtained in Form no.29B u/s 115JB of the Act also discloses the net profit at ₹ 1,52,18,851/- and the book profit also arrived at the very same figure. The assessee has furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same is a bona fide and inadvertent error. In the case of Price waterhouse coopers P Ltd (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court considered the validity of penalty levied on bona fide mistakes and it was 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars. In our view, the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court would come to the help of the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, we hold that the imposition of penalty on the assessee is not justified. 12. The assessee has raised many legal contentions before us. Since we have deleted penalty on merits, we do not find it necessary to address those legal contentions. 13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the year under consideration. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
