9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which suggests that such type of mistake expressed by the assessee as bona fide cannot happen in its case. Though it is quite difficult to prove or disprove such type of claim with the help of demonstrative evidence but the Assessing Officer who assessed the assessee annually may refer some circumstance which can highlight the antecedents of the assessee or its conduct in earlier or subsequent year to suggest that it was not a bona fide mistake rather it was a deliberate attempt. No such material is available on the record, therefore, we do not have any hesitation to conclude that such type of mistake can happen while filing the return - direction to delete the penalty levy - in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 815/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 12- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a 17F, the auditor had reported that a sum of Rs.40.406 paid as a remuneration charges to the auditors and a sum of Rs.1,62,959 paid as freight charges are not allowable as deduction as per section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Assessing Officer confronted this observation to the assessee. The assessee vide his letter dated 10.2.2008 submitted as under: These payments were inadvertently omitted to be added to the income. These may kindly be added in the assessment order. 4. Learned Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings qua these three additions. In response to the notice received under sec. 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act, it was submitted that due to a bona fide mistake, the amounts of Rs.40,406 and Rs.1,62,959 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing evidence. Thus, this amount, prima facie, cannot be considered for the purpose of the penalty. With regard to two other additions, we find that these expenses are of revenue nature. When assessee made the payments, it failed to deduct the TDS, therefore, a deduction cannot be claimed as per section 40(a)(ai) of the Act. Learned first appellate authority while confirming the penalty referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communications reported in 327 ITR 510. The assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products reported in 322 ITR 158. In the case of Zoom Communications, assessee has claimed the deduction of income-tax paid which in any ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
