TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 955
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 3. The assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacture of M.S. pipes. In respect of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 the assessee declared total income of Rs. 1,58,48,748. The return was originally processed under section 143(1) but thereafter selected for scrutiny on August 5, 2009. E-return was filed on September 29, 2008 wherein the assessee debited a sum of Rs. 83,79,859 under the head "Profit and loss of windmill undertaking". The Assessing Officer noticed, from Schedule 16, that a sum of Rs. 1,70,75,385 was charged as depreciation on windmill under the Companies Act and upon taking into consideration the depreciation, the net profit/loss was shown for Income-tax purposes. It is also noticed that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Consequent to the disallowance made in the assessment order the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act read with Explanation 1 on the ground that the assessee filed incorrect particulars of income. Vide letter dated May 19, 2011 the assessee submitted that it had furnished all facts. Additions/disallowances are made on the basis of the details furnished either in the return of income or financial statements and thereby submitted that no additional information has been unearthed on the basis of which any disallowance or addition has been made. It was therefore submitted that it is not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee made a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear under consideration and the assessee filed a revised computation of income, vide letter dated November 15, 2010, declaring total income at Rs. 2.35 crores under the normal provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs. 5.03 crores under section 115JB of the Act. It was also contended that the Assessing Officer added back the depreciation on windmill undertaking at Rs. 1.70 crores without giving due credit for depreciation of Rs. 83.79 lakhs on windmill undertaking which had already been added by the assessee from the beginning, in the return of income. The order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Act was also placed before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to submit that the assessee was granted relief....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee and, in a rather cryptic order, assumed that the mistake of adding less amount is "just a reporting error committed by the tax consultant". He observed in this regard as under : "4.1 However, inadvertently Rs. 83,79,859 was added by picking up wrong line item pertaining to profit/loss of windmill undertaking. The appellant during the assessment proceedings informed the Assessing Officer about this mistake which had crept in while filing the return of income and also submitted the revised computation of income accepting the same. Thus, the mistake of adding less amount towards depreciation on windmill undertaking as per the Companies Act, 1956 to the extent of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced reliance upon the decision of the apex court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC) in support of his contention that when there is complete disclosure of facts merely because there is a wrong claim it cannot be termed as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The assessee filed e-return on September 29, 2008 and the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Within one year from the date of filing of the return the assessee can revise its return whereas the assessee did not choose to revise the return. By 2010 the assessee must have filed returns for subsequent years but it claims that it has not....