ITAT deletes penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for bonafide clerical mistake in income computation despite proper disclosure in audited accounts

ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee regarding penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for disallowance of miscellaneous expenses and loss on sale of asset. The tribunal found that the assessee made a bonafide clerical mistake in omitting the loss amount from income computation, though it was properly reflected in audited accounts. Since all asset sale information was furnished during assessment proceedings and there was no deliberate attempt to conceal income or file inaccurate particulars, the penalty was deleted. The tribunal relied on Price Waterhouse Coopers precedent and allowed the assessee's appeal.

---

---

Issues: Deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 2009-10, specifically challenging the deletion of the penalty of Rs.1,95,017/- imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2. The assessee, engaged in construction business, declared taxable income of Rs.62,88,941/- on a turnover of Rs.34,70,27,097/-. The AO made certain disallowances during assessment, which were agreed upon by the assessee, leading to the penalty proceedings.

3. The penalty was imposed by the AO despite the assessee's explanation that the omission of the loss on sale of fixed asset from the computation was a clerical mistake. The CIT (A) upheld the penalty, prompting the appeal before the ITAT Delhi.

4. The ITAT Delhi considered the submissions of both parties, noting that the mistake was inadvertent and not an attempt to conceal income. The tribunal emphasized that the amount in question was duly reflected in the audited accounts and was rectified during the assessment proceedings.

5. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case, the ITAT Delhi concluded that there was no deliberate attempt to conceal income or provide inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was deemed unjustified, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed, setting aside the orders of the lower authorities.

6. The judgment highlighted the importance of bonafide mistakes and the absence of intent to conceal income or provide false information. The ITAT Delhi's decision was based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the inadvertent nature of the error and the lack of fraudulent intent on the part of the assessee.

7. Ultimately, the ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

---