TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 889
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CTR 320, whereas the facts of the present case are distinguishable. In the present case, the assessee, by claiming deductions which were patently and legally not available to it, has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. ii. Whether the learned CIT(A), is correct in law in holding that the case of the assessee was covered under the saving provision of Section 273 of the I.T. Act, 1961 whereas these provision are not applicable in the cases where penalty is leviable under the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. iii. Appellant craves leave to amend or add any or more grounds of appeal. 2. The assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2007 declaring an income of Rs. 4,84,27,957/- and the same was processed under Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is allowable to the extent of entire income. The deduction was not claimed in the return as it was a case of loss. If there is no tax on income because of section 80P, it cannot be evaded concealed too. (5) The accounts of eth Mills are audited u/s 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No such disallowance was suggested by the Chartered Accountant. (6) The claims were made bona-fidely without any mala-fide. Had the chartered Accountant proposed the disallowances, the assessee would have suo motu added the sums. The return was filed considering the report of eth Chartered Accountant. (7) The addition on account of suspense account relates to A.Y. 2001-02 and the addition, if any, was not called for in A.Y. 2007-08 as the same related to A.Y.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate authority controverted the argument advanced by learned DR and he relied upon the impugned order passed by learned first appellate authority. In addition to his argument, he also stated that non-payment of cane cess of Rs. 6.62 lacs, bonus Rs. 26,875/- and employees contribution to social welfare funds of Rs. 23,700/-, resulting into disallowance of Rs. 7,12,585/-. Secondly, add back of Rs. 3,52,848/- made toward suspense account in the balance-sheet whereas this suspense account was initially came into existence w.e.f. A.Y. 2001-02 and this suspense account does not pertain to A.Y. 2007-08 and lastly the Deduction of FBT of Rs. 50,706/- claimed in the P&L account was not suo motu added back as it is not an admissible deduction. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the balance-sheet whereas this suspense account was initially came into existence w.e.f. A.Y. 2001-02 and this suspense account does not pertain to A.Y. 2007-08. (3) Deduction of FBT of Rs. 50,706/- claimed in the P&L account was not suo motu added back as it is not an admissible deduction. 5.1 It is all along been the appellant's submissions that the firstly, its entire income is otherwise exempt u/s 80-P being a case of coop. society. Secondly, the above bonafide errors has occurred merely on the basis of its Auditor's report u/s 44B, for which the appellant cannot be held defaulter for an act of omission and commissioner of third party. Thirdly, the disallowance/add back towards suspense account of Rs. 3,52,848/- has been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stances of the case, discussed supra, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of concealment penalty as it not covered by any of the Explanation given below the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961. Rather, the case is covered under the saving provisions of Section 273B of the I.T. Act, 1961, as the appellant has been able to successfully and satisfactorily explained the reasonable cause which prevented the appellant causing the bona-fide omission, as the case may be. Accordingly, the concealment penalty levied at Rs. 3,94,378/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded u/s 271(1)(c) for the A.Y. 2007-08 in the above mentioned case is hereby cancelled. 8. We have thoroughly gone through the aforesaid find....