TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscrepancies were pointed out the assessee accepted its mistake and filed the revised computation of income, and paid the tax difference. It is undisputed that the assessee has not further challenged the aforesaid additions made by the AO in the present case. Further, the fact that the donation given was stated in the Tax Audit Report and the deduction u/s 80G was also computed by the tax auditor, however even then the assessee failed to claim a deduction u/s 80G of the Act supports the claim of the assessee that the mistakes were sheer inadvertent human error. We find that the plea of the assessee is supported by the decision of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. 2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] . Therefore, assessee made bona fide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading pharmaceutical products. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 30/09/2011 declaring a total income of Rs. 30,54,99,500. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, from the perusal of the profit and loss account, it was observed that the assessee has debited Rs. 51,35,000 towards donation and charity, however, the same has not been added by the assessee in the computation of income. On bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee in the computation of income. Vide penalty order it was held that the aforesaid aspects came to the light only during the assessment proceedings and had the case not been selected for scrutiny, this income would not have been brought to tax. It is pertinent to note that in the present case, the penalty is levied only in respect of aforesaid two additions made in the scrutiny assessment. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and held that both the issues were identified during the assessment proceedings from the profit and loss account and therefore this is not a case of a bona fide reasonable mistake. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. We have cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d paid the tax difference of Rs. 22,59,394. It is undisputed that the assessee has not further challenged the aforesaid additions made by the AO in the present case. Further, the fact that the donation given was stated in the Tax Audit Report and the deduction under section 80G of the Act was also computed by the tax auditor, however even then the assessee failed to claim a deduction under section 80G of the Act supports the claim of the assessee that the mistakes were sheer inadvertent human error. We find that the plea of the assessee is supported by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. v/s CIT, [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC). Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee made bona fide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
