TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 764
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 147 of the Act dated 04.12.2008. The facts were that the assessee company filed its return of income on 01.12.2008 declaring total income at Rs.1,51,210/-. The said return was revised on 30.03.2005 declaring income at Rs.7,48,758/- u/s.115JB of the Act. However, as per the computation sheet appended to the return, the assessee has declared normal assessable income at Rs.1,56,885/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment. The assessment was completed. Thereafter, the assessment was rectified u/s.154 of the Act on 12.12.2007 to rectify the mistake of allowing the set off of brought forward loss. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act on 27.03.2008. In response to the notice u/s. 148, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o your attention that ground of initiating concealment is that provision for risk inventory has not been added to arrive at the total income. We would like to mention that amount subject to disallowance was reflected separately in annual report refer schedule 5. However, inadvertently same left to be disallowed while filing tax return of the company. It is also relevant to mention here company is dealing in medicine and as insisted by auditors this provision for near expiry goods may not be salable was made in the books of accounts. It is relevant to mention here that return of income was filed by a person who has left the organization and is from a legacy company. We understand this was a bonafide mistake made by the person filed the ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 291 ITR 519 and in the case of Kanbay Software India (Pvt.) Ltd. reported in 31 SOT 153 (pune) the Ld. CIT(A) held that in the fact and the circumstances and relying on case cited, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.7,87,986/- is deleted. 4. Against this finding, the Revenue is before us. 5. The learned DR strongly relied upon the findings of the A.O. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee reiterated its stand that the mistake was inadvertent and bonafide. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai 'C' Bench in ITA No. 2349/Mum/2009 in the case of Precision Electrical Wiring System pvt ltd v/s ITO 9[2][4], Mumbai order dated 19/01/2011 and Mumbai 'D' Bench in ITA No.3356/Mum/2009 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e intention of the assessee company was not bonafide. The Ld. CIT(A) has cancelled the penalty on the submission of the assessee that the claim was in accordance with the regular method of accounting followed by the appellant. However, before us, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that in the earlier year such a provision was added back in the computation of income which again show that the omission for not adding back the provision this year is not a bonafide mistake. Reliance placed by the learned counsel on the two decisions of the ITAT cited (supra) is against the facts of the present case. In ITA 2349/Mum/2009 [supra] the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal cancelled penalty on finding that the excess claim U/s 80IB in ....