9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposition was not justified. 3. We are concerned with the assessment year 2000-01. The assessee provides multi-disciplinary management consultancy services and has a worldwide reputation. It filed its return of income on 30-11-2000 under section 139(6) read with section 139(6A) of the Income-tax Act (for short, 'the Act'). As statutorily required by section 139(6A) of the Act, the assessee also filed its tax audit report under section 44AB of the Act. The Statement of Particulars filed by the assessee was in Form 3CD as required by rule 6G(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and is, in a sense, an integral part of the return. 4. In Column 17(i) of the Statement, it was stated as follows: - 17. Amounts debited to the profit and loss a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the assessment, which read as under: - "A. Reasons for opening u/s 147 relevant to A.Y. 2000-01 In this case, regular assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 26-3-03 at. a total income of Rs. 24,42,91,550/-. On perusal of the assessment records, it is seen from Clause 17(i) of the Tax Audit Report that Rs.23,70,306/- being liabilities provided for payment of gratuity, was provided for during the year. This provision is not allowable u/s 40A(7) and was required to be added back. However, the same has not been added by the assessee in its computation, thereby leading to underassessment of income by Rs. 23,70,306/-." 9. Soon after the assessee was communicated the reasons for reopening the assessment, it realized that a mistak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal, the assessee approached the Calcutta High Court which dismissed its appeal filed under section 260A of the Act by the impugned order. The only reason given by the High Court for dismissing the appeal reads as under: - 'After analysing the facts of this case, considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties and the materials placed before us, we cannot brush aside the fact that the assessee company is a well known and reputed Chartered Accountant firm and a tax consultant. We also do not find any substance in the submissions made by Dr. Pal; on the contrary, in our considered opinion, we find that section 271(1)(c) of the Act has specifically stated about the concealment of the particulars of income or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring the return was unaware of the fact that the services of some employees had been taken over upon acquisition of a business, but they were not members of an approved gratuity fund unlike other employees of the assessee. Under these circumstances, the tax return was finalized and filled in by a named person who was not a Chartered Accountant and was a common resource. 16. It is further stated in the affidavit that the return was signed by a director of the assessee who proceeded on the basis that the return was correctly drawn up and so did not notice the discrepancy between the Tax Audit Report and the return of income. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the facts of the case are rather peculiar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
