TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Even before the Assessing Officer, the same was explained vide letter dated 13/1/2017 as is appearing at page 7 of the paper book filed before us in response to notice dated 25/11/2016. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that there was an inadvertent mistake committed by the Auditor of the assessee by wrongly mentioning the figure in column 40(C) of 3CD Audit Report as ₹ 1,13,41,173/- instead of ₹ 1,77,94,019/-, therefore, any addition in the hands of the assessee due to some typing error is not legally permissible. With these findings, we direct the deletion of addition made in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are allowed. - ITA No.657/LKW/2017 Assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer, as per the finding in the Assessing Officer s order, and accordingly addition of ₹ 64,52,847/- was made. 4. Before the ld. CIT(A), assessee made a detailed submission which, for the sake of ready reference, is reproduced hereunder:- Ground no.1 relate to addition of ₹ 64.52,847/-. The above amount has been added on account of difference appearing in the audited profit Loss Account and that as appearing in Form 3CD Audit Report. The correct figure is ₹ 1,13,41,172/- as per the audited accounts. While preparing form No. 3CD the figure wrongly typed by the auditors is ₹ 1,177,94,019/-. The Assessing Officer has taken the above figure of ₹ 1,77,94,019/- as against the figure reflected in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same and to show cause as to why the deference amount of ₹ 64.52,847/- may not be added to its income by 03.12.2016. the assessee has not submitted anything in this regard till the date of order. Accordingly, an addition of ₹ 64,52,847/- the difference between the two net profit disclosed by the assessee, is being made to the total income of the assessee. Since the assessee has conceal the particular of this income and submitted inaccurate particulars of such income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is being initiated separately. It was explained to the Assessing Officer that it is a typographical error and has inadvertently by mistake wrongly typed by the staff of the auditors. The Assessing Officer kept the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngaged in the business of manufacturing of Safety Shoes. Safety Uppers and lasted upper from the finished leather. ShriRavi Shukla, Authorized Representative of the assessee attended form time to time , filed various details as required, produced books of accounts, bills, vouchers, etc. which were seen and put to test check and the case was discussed with him. A perusal of the entire assessment order it would be found that the books of account have not been rejected and the figure of net profit as declared by the assessee in the Profit Loss Account and the ITR. has been accepted as such. The books of account having been accepted, it is all the more clear, that the addition of ₹ 64,52,847/- being the difference of (₹ 1,77,9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e filing 3CA Report and the value of net profit for assessment is ₹ 1,13,41,172/-. The ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention to page No.36 of the paper book, which is the copy of Audited Annual Report for the assessment year 2014-15, wherein the auditor of the assessee has given clarification on the net profit shown in para 40 of 3CD Report for the year ending on 31/3/2014 (assessment year 2014-15). In the letter, it is specifically mentioned that net profit as per profit loss account is ₹ 1,13,41,173/-. The figure of net profit mentioned in para 40 of 3CD Report dated 28/8/2014 has inadvertently been mentioned as ₹ 1,77,94,019/-. The above clerical mistake has taken place while importing the figures from fixe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advertently mentioned. We further observe that even before the Assessing Officer, the same was explained vide letter dated 13/1/2017 as is appearing at page 7 of the paper book filed before us in response to notice dated 25/11/2016. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that there was an inadvertent mistake committed by the Auditor of the assessee by wrongly mentioning the figure in column 40(C) of 3CD Audit Report as ₹ 1,13,41,173/- instead of ₹ 1,77,94,019/-, therefore, any addition in the hands of the assessee due to some typing error is not legally permissible. With these findings, we direct the deletion of addition made in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal taken by the assessee ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
