TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 928
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the appellant that there was a bonafide inadvertent omission in not adding the book amount in the computation of income and facts relating to same have been fully disclosed. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming penalty despite the fact that the assessee being a Public Sector Undertaking itself has disclosed all the facts and figures and as such there was no concealment of income on the part of the assessee. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming penalty rejecting the contention of the assessee that the appellant has submitted explanation in support of its contention that there is neither concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied by the A.O. as no finding has been given on merit regarding concealment in the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd same has been debited to the Profit and Loss Account of the year 2008-09. However, while filing the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2008-09 such Deferred Revenue Expenditure of Rs.30.17 millions was inadvertently not added back to the taxable income due to omission. Since omission, as stated above, was unintentional and not meant to hide any facts, therefore your good self is requested to kindly consider the above fact while finalizing the assessment order." 2.2. In view of the said position the amount of Rs.3,01,60,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee and penalty proceedings were initiated. The reply offered by the assessee in the penalty proceedings was not accepted by the AO who rejected the same holding as under:- "4. I have considered the submission of the assessee on the facts and merits of the case. The assessee has incurred these expenses in the F.Y.2006-07. In its written reply during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee company submitted that while preparing the accounts deferred revenue expenditures of Rs.30.17 millions wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs.3,01,60,000/- to the profit and loss account on account of deferred revenue expenses written off. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings the ld. AO asked the appellant to justify the allowability of the same. 6. The appellant vide its reply dated 07.12.2010 filed on 10.12.2010 before the AO stated that the said amount was not added back to the income for the year under consideration while preparing the computation of income due to some inadvertent omission. 7. Since the said omission was unintentional and not meant to hide any facts, therefore the appellant request the assessing officer to add the same to the gross total income. 8. The ld. AO passed the assessment order assessing the loss at Rs.46,43,17,170/- thereby adding an amount of Rs.3,01,63,555/- 9. The ld. AO ignoring the fact that the appellant is a public sector undertaking and inspite of specific disclosure by the appellant that the mistake of not adding back the expenditure claimed on account of deferred expenses written off was due to some inadvertent omission initiated the penalty proceedings under section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stration expenses" claimed at Rs.221 million the breakup of which is provided at paper book page 32 which contains the details of Schedule 'T'. A perusal of the same it was pointed out specifically makes a mention that the said amount has been reflected as deferred expenses written off the amount is specifically mentioned, the narration is clear and the facts are fully disclosed. It was his arguments that the full disclosure has been made by the assessee and only due to inadvertent error the mistake has occurred. Accordingly applying the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Price Water Cooper (P.) Ltd. vs CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) rendered by the Apex Court the penalty it was submitted deserves to be quashed. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of CIT vs Escorts Finance Ltd. (2009) 28 DTR 293 and the judgement of the Apex Court and CIT vs Reliance Petro Products (supra) which has taken into consideration the judgement rendered in the case of Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. Further reliance was placed upon the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Dhanabal (2008) 12 DTR (Del) 337; CIT vs Societex (2012) 82 CCH 069 (Del HC) ;....