2012 (7) TMI 664

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x Act, 1961 („Act‟, for short), was not leviable on the assessee.   2. The assessee is engaged inter alia in rendering consultancy services. It had, for the assessment year 1997-98, claimed depreciation in respect of the properties - one at Bangalore and the other at Khan Market, New Delhi. In the first round, the matter came for the determination of the CIT (Appeals), who concluded that depreciation was allowable only to the extent of 2/3rd claim in respect of the Bangalore property and that for the Khan Market property such deduction could not be claimed. The total amount added back for these were Rs.9,561/- and 1,71,683/-. The assessee had also made provision for taxation to the extent of Rs.23,50,000/- under the head....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hich reads as follows :   "6. We have heard both the sides. The provision made for advance tax of Rs.23,50,000/- debited in the P&L account not added back to income is bonafide mistake. Assessee paid advance tax in the month of March only. 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 concern is a firm which is not having expert chartered accountants at its payroll. Further, this was the first year in which the provision for taxation was debited to the P&L account. In such a situation, it is a human bonafide clerical mistake occurred while making the st....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....om August, 1996 and under the circumstances there seems to have been a mechanical repetition of the claim in the return filed. So far as the question of furnishing inaccurate particulars with regard to the provision of taxation is concerned, ld. counsel submitted that it was inadvertent and even the record showed that such a claim had been made for the first time during the assessment year. 6. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is premised on the footing that even if inadvertent by particulars are not given, if the authority finds that the explanation given is not bona fide penalty u/s. 271 would be warranted. Similar observations were made in CIT v. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 158. In the present case, so far as ....