9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brief facts as have been brought on record are that the assessee is a dealer of liquor purchased from Orissa State Beverages Corporation Ltd., (in short OSBCL) subject to tax collection at source at the rate prescribed under the provisions of Section 206C(5) including surcharge and Cess. The Assessing Officer on the basis of audited P & L account verified the purchases on the basis of TCS certificates issued which difference was approximately 1% due to technical accounting of the same was considered excess purchases claimed by the assessee in the P & L account for taxation. A sum of Rs.68,508 was added to the income returned by the assessee from its proprietary concern. Disallowance of expenses on the business promotion, Misc. expenses and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chnical error in view of the fact that the accountant had included 1% TCS as part of purchase cost when actually the purchases were in accordance with the purchase bills raised by OSBCL. The Assessing Officer had simply compared the TCS on the total purchases of Rs. 68,12,763.65 on which the TCS was Rs.73,319 against which the Assessing Officer has given credit. Therefore, it was a technical error of the accountant of including the sum of Rs.68,508 as excess purchase which was basically the amount of TCS sought to be reconciled against the purchases which stood reconciled in the Assessment Year 2007-08 which copies are being furnished as per the statement of TCS, Surcharge and Cess. No further amount of TCS has been given credit clinches th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nitiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). For this proposition, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dr.Syamal Baran Mondal v. CIT [(2011 244 CTR (Cal) 631] who have categorically concluded that technical errors committed by the accountants and disallowance of expenditure partly sustained cannot be a ground for invoking the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) insofar as claiming of expenditure to be disallowed by the Assessing Officer is neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Furthermore the addition of Rs.68,508 confirmed by the learned CIT(A) was on the technical ground that the TCS cannot be claimed as an expenditure clearly ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it availed by the assessee. The assessee chose to report the same for carrying out the rectification in the Assessment Year 2007-08 when the total amount of TCS stands tallied with the amount of purchases as recorded by the OSBCL. In other words, it is a clear case of error committed by the TCS deductor and not because the assessee had violated the provisions of Section 145A. Refraining ourselves from commenting on quantum not being agitated by the assessee before the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the facts clearly indicate that there was no material with the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) after having carried out appeal effect on learned CIT(A)'s order. The learned CIT(A) had given relief on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
