9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O while completing assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on protective basis without making any other additions, thus no penalty can be imposed on concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As the conduct of the assessee in coming out voluntarily and offering the amount of Rs.1.68 crores to tax, a liberal view has to be taken in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pened the assessment by issuing a notice u/s 148 on the reason that income to the tune of Rs.1,67,48,192 has escaped assessment. 3. In compliance to the notice issued u/s 148, the assessee filed its return declaring an income of Rs.3,53,01,260/- which included the amount of Rs.1,67,48,192. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 on protective basis accepting the return filed by the assessee. The AO however issued a notice to the assessee asking him to show cause why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) shall not be imposed for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee offered explanation before the AO and requested in writing that since an appeal has been preferred against the order pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In course of hearing before CIT (A), the assessee contended that it was not a case of bogus entry as alleged by the AO but bonafide mistake made by the Accountant who made double entry due to over-sight. Entries were made once on receipt of purchase invoice in the month of March, 2000 by including quantity of raw material consumed and again entry was made in the month of April, 2000 on actual receipt of raw material. This mistake even could not be located by the Auditors either under statutory audit or tax audit. 5. The assessee contended that in fact this amount was never considered as purchase consideration for the assessment year 2000-01 for the purpose of payment of advance tax which resulted in a refund in scrutiny assessment for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t testimony put forth by the AR. The fact that such an error was not detected by either the statutory auditor or tax auditor is a point not to be missed. Another point to be considered is that the AO has accepted the revised return, but levied interest u/s 234B(3), which is an issue not related to variation of quantum in reassessment proceedings. In this regard also, as pointed out by the AR, the AO was not justified even in initiation of penalty proceedings. The legal opinion as brought out by the AR also in favour of the appellant and the implications were correctly spelt out." 6. The learned DR while supporting the reasoning of the AO contended that the assessee has made double entries and it has come to the notice as a result of search ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a fact that there was no mistake detected by the auditors either at the time of statutory audit or tax audit. Subsequently, when a mistake came to the notice during the block assessment proceedings, the assessee filed revised return voluntarily offering income to tax. In fact, the AO has also accepted the income declared in the revised return while completing assessment u/s 143(3) read with section 147 on protective basis without making any other additions. When the assessee has recorded purchases in its books of account, there is no question of concealment of any income. The allegation of bogus purchases made in the penalty order is also unfounded. The explanation of the assessee that the same purchase was recorded twice due to bonafide hu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
