TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chartered Accountant. As the professional fees which was reflected in Form 26AS but not in the Income Tax Return, then definitely it is a mistake on the part of the professional who has audited the accounts and filed the Income Tax Return. As been stated before the authorities that this amount was shown under the head advances and same has been offered to tax in the subsequent year. Though such a professional receipt has wrongly been reflected under the head advance when assessee is following cash system of accounting, but it cannot be held that there is any kind of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Once, even before the scrutiny proceedings the assessee had offered the amount for tax on the same professio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relation to the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). 2. Assessee is mainly aggrieved by levy of penalty of ₹ 14,08,240/- u/s 271(1)(c) on account of addition of ₹ 40,00,0053/- an interest of ₹ 1,43,578/-. 3. The facts in brief are that assessee is an individual engaged in legal profession and practicing as a corporate lawyer and is a Senior Member of AZB Partner LLP Firm Delhi. She had filed her return of income on 15.11.2014 declaring income of ₹ 1,13,94,100/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that there was mismatch of professional receipts as reflected in Form 26AS and as shown in Income Tax Return. In response to the show cause notice it was submitted that it was a bonafide mistake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commencement of the assessment proceedings. He further submitted that assessee has entrusted entire accounting, audit and tax computation work to her Chartered Accountant and he has wrongly shown the part of receipts as advance failed to reconcile the receipts with Form 26AS. Further the fixed deposit interest income has been offered net of TDS instead of gross amount and therefore, this was pure clerical mistake and it cannot be held that it is a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of particulars of income. Reliance was placed on various decisions including the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT-SC (2012) 348 ITR 306. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been reflected in the books of accounts and in the audit report though wrongly taken under the head advances . Under these circumstances can it be held that assessee had concealed any income when entire income is through cheque and duly disclosed in the books and even tax has been paid in subsequent year when rates of taxes are same and there is no loss of revenue. Thus, penalty on such amount cannot be upheld. The same is directed to be deleted. 9. Similarly the addition on account of interest is mainly on the ground that assessee had shown the interest income net of TDS instead of gross amount. This again is a mistake of professional who has filed the income tax return. Such a mistake does not lead to any conclusion at assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
