TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 775
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew that on the facts of the case the imposition was not justified. 3. We are concerned with the assessment year 2000-01. The assessee provides multi-disciplinary management consultancy services and has a worldwide reputation. It filed its return of income on 30-11-2000 under section 139(6) read with section 139(6A) of the Income-tax Act (for short, 'the Act'). As statutorily required by section 139(6A) of the Act, the assessee also filed its tax audit report under section 44AB of the Act. The Statement of Particulars filed by the assessee was in Form 3CD as required by rule 6G(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and is, in a sense, an integral part of the return. 4. In Column 17(i) of the Statement, it was stated as follows: - 17. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder protest on 16-2-2004 and also requested for the grounds for reopening the assessment. 8. By a letter dated 16-12-2004, the assessee was furnished the reasons for reopening the assessment, which read as under: - "A. Reasons for opening u/s 147 relevant to A.Y. 2000-01 In this case, regular assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 26-3-03 at. a total income of Rs. 24,42,91,550/-. On perusal of the assessment records, it is seen from Clause 17(i) of the Tax Audit Report that Rs.23,70,306/- being liabilities provided for payment of gratuity, was provided for during the year. This provision is not allowable u/s 40A(7) and was required to be added back. However, the same has not been added by the assessee in its computati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ince the assessee is a high-calibre and competent organisation, it was not expected to make such a mistake. Accordingly, the Tribunal reduced the penalty to 100%. 13. Against the order of the Tribunal, the assessee approached the Calcutta High Court which dismissed its appeal filed under section 260A of the Act by the impugned order. The only reason given by the High Court for dismissing the appeal reads as under: - 'After analysing the facts of this case, considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties and the materials placed before us, we cannot brush aside the fact that the assessee company is a well known and reputed Chartered Accountant firm and a tax consultant. We also do not find any substance in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,000 employees. It has a separate accounts department which maintains day to day accounts, payrolls etc. It is stated in the affidavit that perhaps there was some confusion because the person preparing the return was unaware of the fact that the services of some employees had been taken over upon acquisition of a business, but they were not members of an approved gratuity fund unlike other employees of the assessee. Under these circumstances, the tax return was finalized and filled in by a named person who was not a Chartered Accountant and was a common resource. 16. It is further stated in the affidavit that the return was signed by a director of the assessee who proceeded on the basis that the return was correctly drawn up and so did....