TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 799
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to as "the Act" for short). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee-company had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2004-05 on 31-10-2004 declaring loss of Rs. 8,62,60,370 under regular computation and book profit of Rs. 10,81,45,235 under section 115JB of the Act. The tax payable under regular computation as per return of income was nil and under section 115JB the tax payable was Rs. 83,15,934. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act raising a demand of Rs. 9,433. Subsequently, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 22-12-2006 determining total income at Rs. 15,53,77,730. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. In response to the notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mentioning it as loss. As per the assessee's explanation, this happened because of "inadvertent error in operating Excel formulae". The memo of income is prepared through Excel software and the assessee claims that the wrong reporting took place because of error in Excel formula. This is not possible to occur because the subtraction operation has been done correctly by the Excel software and for the Excel to arrive at the loss figure of Rs. 8,51,66,606, the figure deducted 'depreciation for income-tax purposes' should have been Rs. 27,91,30,101 instead of Rs. 10,87,96,889. The formula in Excel sheet is fed by human beings only and clearly subtraction operation has been fed by the operator and hence the resultant figure with brackets is i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....company. There are discrepancies in this book profit audit report. The chartered accountant has certified that tax payable under section 115JB of the Income-tax Act in respect of the assessment year 2004-05 is Rs. nil. But in the annexure A to this Form No. 29B, chartered accountant has certified in column No. 2 that the total income of the company under the Income-tax Act is loss Rs. 8,62,60,370, in column No. 12 that the book profit is Rs. 10,81,45,235 and in column No. 14 that the amount of the income-tax payable by the company as Rs. 83,13,665. If the tax payable under section 115JB is nil as mentioned in the report then how in the annexure to the same report can the book profit be Rs. 10,81,45,235 and the income of the company under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee assailed this penalty before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who, vide his order dated 27-2-2009 has accepted the contention of the assessee that there was an inadvertent mistake of the person working on the computer while computing taxable income for this assessment year. He has also given weight to the reasoning that there is no loss of revenue to the Department. With like arguments, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has deleted the entire penalty against which the Revenue is in appeal and has raised following grounds : "1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is contrary to law and facts and circumstances of the case. 2.1 The lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. This is a clear case which falls in the second category. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) is attracted in this case. This Explanation 1 reads as under : "Explanation 1.-Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act,- (A) such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner to be false, or (B) such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In that case, there was a mistake in calculation which is definitely not the case in hand. The other decision on which the learned authorised representative has relied is that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322. The ratio of that case is that when any information given in the return of income is found be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. In that case the assessee had disclosed true price of IPL shares by way of its business policies, but had made an incorrect claim. In the given case, the assessee has given inaccurate particulars of its income. We also endorse the observation made by the Assessi....