9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty can be levied under the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, we also place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Coopers (P.) Ltd., [2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] Thus we hold that no penalty is leviable in the facts and circumstances of the case under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in full. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 6115/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2015 - SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant by : Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. For The Respondent by : Sh. Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M.: This appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for scrutiny and finally the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ), at a total income of ₹ 2,70,99,249/- after making additions on the following three items: i. Expenses not allowed as no business done : ₹ 5,53,714/- ii. Addition on account of cash credit u/s 68 : ₹ 1,47,30,00/- iii. Disallowed claim of the assessee u/s 43B : ₹ 1,00,18,799/- On appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) allowed the grounds relating to addition on account of cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unts constitute income in view of the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar Sons Ltd. (supra). This matter has not been considered by the learned CIT(Appeals). Therefore, this matter is restored to the file of the AO with a view to decide the same de-novo after hearing the assessee and keeping the aforesaid decision of the Hon ble Suprme Court in mind. Thus, this ground is partly allowed, as discussed above. 2.1 Pursuant to the above order of the Tribunal, a consequential order dated 23rd December, 2010 was passed assessing taxable income at ₹ 40,44,430/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made the addition of ₹ 16,90,232/- on account of credit balances written back, ₹ 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on made earlier under the same section in respect of interest waived by Haryana Financial Corporation Bank. The sundry creditors for expenses of ₹ 16,93,980/- was inadvertently included and the sundry creditors written off were clearly disclosed in the financial statement prepared in the schedule XI of the balance-sheet and even in schedule XV of the balance sheet i.e. Notes to Account, a full disclosure of interests of ₹ 83,24,899/- waived by Haryana Finance Corporation Bank, the sundry creditors of ₹ 16,93,980/- written back was made. Therefore, he submitted that it is only on account of bona fide mistake that occurred at the time of filing return of income. The sundry creditors written back of ₹ 16,98,980/- was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Coopers (P.) Ltd., 348 ITR 306. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below: 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the facts of the case are rather peculiar and somewhat unique. The assessee is undoubtedly a reputed firm and has great expertise available with it. Notwithstanding this, it is possible that even the assessee could make a silly mistake and indeed this has been acknowledged both by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court. 18. The fact that the Tax Audit Report was filed along with the return and that it unequivocally stated that the provision for payment was not allowable under Section 40A(7) of the Act in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
