9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fide and inadvertent error the assessee claimed the income as exempt and wrongly provided for partners’ salary. But the submissions of the assessee was that the error occurred by a mistake of its accountant, who treated the said professional income as income from Mutual funds’ and the salary was claimed on the basis of the clause mentioned in the original partnership deed was not found to be false. We, therefore, keeping in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd [2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty so levied by the AO. - Decided in favour of assessee - GA 2541 of 2015 & ITAT 104 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 2- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rofessional income included in the income from mutual funds. The AO has made disallowance of ₹ 2,76,893/- on account of partners remuneration debited to the P/L account. On both the above-mentioned additions/disallowances, the AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is observed that in the P/L account, the appellant had credited sum of ₹ 50,29,581/- under the head income from mutual fund . However, in the said income, sum of ₹ 34,66,017/- was included which was actually the professional income. Hence, the said income was added by the AO as income from professional and accordingly the income from mutual fund was reduced. During the course of assessment proceedings as well as the penalty proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund was due to mistake of the Accountant and that the said mistake was a bona fide mistake and not an intentional one. I am of the opinion that merely for the reason that certain additions/disallowances has been made in the assessment order, it cannot lead to conclude that the assessee has concealed its income or has filed inaccurate particulars of his income. The explanation offered before the AO was not found to be false or not bonafide. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx In the case of appellant, the AO has made the addition on account of professional income and made the disallowance for partners salary. It was explained before the AO that the mistakes were committed by the Accountant while writing the books. The said mista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not noticed by the AO, and the assessee itself during the course of assessment proceedings while preparing the details from its ledge accounts came to know the said mistake had been committed by the accountant and proposed for addition. Therefore, through a bonafide and inadvertent error the assessee claimed the income as exempt and wrongly provided for partners salary. But the submissions of the assessee was that the error occurred by a mistake of its accountant, who treated the said professional income as income from Mutual funds and the salary was claimed on the basis of the clause mentioned in the original partnership deed was not found to be false. We, therefore, keeping in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
