9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant Authority are erroneous and against the law. 2. The assessing officer failed to consider the material records submitted by appellant in connection with provision for expenses which truly established the genuineness of the expenditure claimed by the appellant. 3. The fact that certain expenses which were not considered in tax audit report and later included in the income tax return by the appellant does not vitiate the genuineness of the expenditure claimed as the payment were routed only through banking channels. 4. The A.O has adopted the statement of profit and loss account as reported by the chartered Account vide section 44AB of the Act instead of the profit and loss account as per books of account maintained. 5. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onciliation with Form 26AS and if you consider these year end expenses, net profit reported by the assessee in the return of income filed for the relevant assessment year is correct. However, the tax auditor has not considered correct financials while uploading data in Form 3CD. Therefore, the assessee submitted that difference in net profit as per two documents has been reconciled. 4. The Assessing Officer however, was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to him, arguments of the assessee is that Tax Auditors Mr.Narayanaswamy and N.Krishnaswamy, who furnished audit report u/s.44AB of the Act, has not reported correct figures is incorrect, because audit report has been filed on twice, one before the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return, has reported same profit as that of original audit report. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) opined that there is no error in the findings of the Assessing Officer that revised audit report which has been filed after filing of return did not reflect claim of provisions made for expenses and thus, there is no case for the assessee to claim that difference has been reconciled, hence, rejected arguments of the assessee and sustained additions made by the Assessing Officer towards difference in net profit. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The learned A.R for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has reconciled difference between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITR 306 (SC) and submitted that for bonafide mistake of a human, which we all prone to errors, no one can be penalized. 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that claim of the assessee that tax auditor has considered unaudited financials for relevant assessment year, while uploading tax audit report in Form 3CD goes unproved, because if at all, claim of the assessee is correct, then tax auditor would have corrected mistake when he had filed tax audit report on second time after the assessee filed its return of income. Since, tax audit auditor has reported net profit which was reported earlier, even after filing revised tax audit report, then it can be very safely concluded that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported financial figures as per which there is no difference in income and major expenses. Further, the assessee claims to have made certain year end provisions which has been not considered by the tax auditor. However, on perusal of reasons given by the Assessing Officer, it is abundantly clear that even after filing revised tax audit report, tax auditor has reported very same net profit which was reported in earlier tax audit report filed on 17.10.2016, even before the assessee filed return of income on 27.10.2016. If at all, claim of the assessee is correct that auditor has not considered year end provisions while uploading Form 3CD, then tax auditor would have corrected said mistake, when he had filed second audit report on 27.10.2016, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal came to the conclusion that there was an inadvertent error committed by the auditor, who wrongly mentioned net profit figure in tax audit report, however, there is no difference in either income or expenses reported by the assessee. In this case, there is difference between expenses reported by the assessee and the assessee claims to have made certain provisions to reconcile difference in net profit. As we have already noted in earlier part of this order, claim of the assessee goes unproved in absence of any evidences. Hence, case laws relied upon by the assessee has no application to the facts of the present case. 10. Insofar as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt.Ltd Vs. CIT (supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
