TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Upholds Tribunal Decision on Penalties</h1> The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should be levied due to the bonafide nature ... Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)- Held that:- The provision made for advance tax debited in the P&L account not added back to income is bonafide mistake - It is the first time that provision was debited in P&L account. Had there been any intention to file inaccurate particulars then the assessee could not have paid the advance tax in the last month of assessment year - the assessee had made a claim for deduction of the provision for the first time in the year under appeal as there was no history of furnishing such accurate particulars by the assessee for the previous years - in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Disallowance of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Allowability of depreciation claims for properties in Bangalore and Khan Market, New Delhi.3. Disallowance of provision for taxation under 'current liabilities' in the profit and loss account.4. Reconsideration of the matter by the Tribunal on merits.5. Bonafide mistake in the provision for advance tax and the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c).6. Interpretation of case laws related to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.Issue 1: Disallowance of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the penalty of Rs.10,09,948 under Section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings based on disallowed depreciation claims and provision for taxation. The CIT (Appeals) deleted the penalty, stating inaccurate particulars were not furnished. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the absence of recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found no penalty imposable for depreciation claims but upheld it for the provision for taxation. Upon reconsideration, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty could not be levied due to bonafide mistakes in the provision for advance tax, which was rectified promptly.Issue 2: Allowability of Depreciation Claims:The assessee claimed depreciation for properties in Bangalore and Khan Market, New Delhi. The CIT (Appeals) allowed 2/3rd claim for the Bangalore property but disallowed it for Khan Market. The Tribunal revisited the matter and found no penalty imposable for depreciation claims but upheld it for the provision for taxation due to bonafide clerical errors.Issue 3: Disallowance of Provision for Taxation:The provision for taxation under 'current liabilities' was disallowed in the assessment. The Tribunal reasoned that the provision of Rs.23,50,000 debited in the profit and loss account, not added back to income, was a bonafide mistake. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee rectified the error promptly, indicating a lack of intention to furnish inaccurate particulars.Issue 4: Reconsideration by the Tribunal:Following cross-appeals by the assessee and the revenue, the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration on merits. The Tribunal, in its impugned order, concluded that the penalty could not be levied considering the circumstances and the bonafide nature of the mistakes made by the assessee.Issue 5: Bonafide Mistake in Provision for Advance Tax:The Tribunal found that the provision for advance tax of Rs.23,50,000, debited in the profit and loss account and not added back to income, was a bonafide mistake. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee promptly rectified the error upon detection, indicating a lack of intention to furnish inaccurate particulars.Issue 6: Interpretation of Case Laws:The decision cited by the Revenue was countered by the assessee, emphasizing that the claims made were not intentionally incorrect but resulted from inadvertent errors. Case laws were cited to support the argument that no penalty should be imposed when mistakes are bonafide and promptly rectified.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose in the case. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should be levied due to the bonafide nature of the mistakes made by the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
