9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant craves the leave to add, amend, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other." (B) Vide assessment order dated 19/12/2018 passed u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act. The assessee's total income/loss was determined at (48,71,176)/-; as against the returned loss of Rs.50,39,439/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, an addition of Rs.1,68,263/- was made on account of personal expenses of the Directors. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced as under: "3. Addition on account of personal expenses: It was observed that assessee-company had disallowed a part of its expenses as personal expenses of the directors in its computation of income. However, this disallowance was less than the amount which the auditor had specified in his report in Form 3CD. Vide show cause dated 14.12.2018, the assessee was asked as to why should these expenses which were not in the nature of business expenses be disallowed and treated as its income for AY 2016-17. In its reply dated 17.12.2018, the assessee accepted that it had not added back the motor car expenses to its income while computi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... axmann.com 400/211 Taxman 40/348 ITR 306 (SC) -DCIT, Mumbai Vs Shah Rukh Khan [2018] 93 taxmann.com 320 (Mumbai-Trib.) CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 322/322 ITR 158 (SC) -Tristar Intech (P.) Ltd vs. ACIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 392 (Delhi-Trib.) -Vimalachal Print & Pack (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2022] 137 taxmann.com 415 (Ahmedabad-ITAT) (C) At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative ("AR" for short) for the assessee drew our attention to the summary of the case filed as a part of the aforesaid paper book. The relevant portion of the summary of the case is reproduced as under: "FACTS: Under instructions from the appellant, we would like to submit the following: -The appellant had filed its return for the year under reference, declaring loss of Rs.50,39,439/- on 17.10.2016. - The learned AO had made addition of Rs.1,68,263/- to the total income while passing order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of disallowance being personal in nature. - On passing of the above order, the learned AO has assessed loss at Rs.48,71,176/-, the above said disallowance was only due to bonafide/inadvertent mistake by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed before the learned AO. Moreover, the details called for by the AO were also submitted. The learned AO did not find the details or particulars wrong or incorrect. The appellant had filed revised computation of income (Refer Anexure-D) during assessment proceedings wherein an amount of Rs.1.68,263/-, being personal in nature, inadvertently omitted to be considered in computation of income without any malafide intention was added back. Therefore, there is neither concealment nor filing of any inaccurate particulars on part of the appellant. Moreover, amount disallowed on account of personal expenses of directors was actually bonafide mistake of oversight, not warranting levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. "Concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars" are different. Both concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars refer to deliberate acts on the part of the assessee. A mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of suppressio veri or suggestion falsi. The appellant had disclosed the particulars of all the expenses incurred during the year in the Audited Financial Statements for the relevant year and details of such expe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shah Rukh Khan [2018] 93 taxmann.com 320 (Mumbai-Trib.) CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 322/322 ITR 158 (SC) -Tristar Intech (P.) Ltd vs. ACIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 392 (Delhi-Trib.) -Vimalachal Print & Pack (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2022] 137 taxmann.com 415 (Ahmedabad-ITAT) The Ld. AR for the assessee further emphasized the fact that revised computation of income offering the aforesaid amount Rs.1,68,263/- for addition, was filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer as soon as the bonafide and inadvertent mistake came to the knowledge of the assessee. In view of these submissions, the Ld. AR for the assessee contended that the aforesaid penalty of Rs.51,993/- u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act should be cancelled. The Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and Assessing Officer. (C) We have heard both sides. At the time of hearing before us, there was no material dispute regarding facts of the case between the representatives of two sides, i.e., Ld. AR for the assessee and Ld. Sr. DR for Revenue. It is not in dispute that the assessee filed revised computation of income/loss, offering the aforesaid a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against Revenue by order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case to Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 348 ITR 306 (SC), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "19. The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assessee concealing its income. There is also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. It appears to us that all that has happened in the present case is that through a bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return, failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. This can only be described as a human error which we are all prone to make. The calibre and expertise of the assessee has little or nothing to do with the inadvertent error. That the assessee should have been careful cannot be doubted, but the absence of due care, in a case such as the present does not mean that the assessed is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. 20. We are of the opinion, given the peculiar facts of this case, that the imposition of penalty on the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
