TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1293
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als)-XVII, New Delhi [briefly 'the CIT(A)'] has erred in upholding levy of penalty of Rs. 6,22,538/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that deduction of Rs. 16,93,980/- was claimed through oversight. In the P&L A/c, gross amount of Rs. 1,00,18,799/- was credited as other income. Out of the said amount of Rs. 1,00,18,799/-, a sum of Rs. 83,24,819/- was not taxable, however, inadvertently deduction of entire amount was claimed. 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that assessee had carried forward losses and depreciation of more than 1,00,00,000/- and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r year and deems such amount or benefit t be the income of the assessee in which it has been obtained. The assessee had incurred expenditure by way of interest payable to HFC in five years, which was written back in this year. However, in the earlier years, the admitted position is that the expenditure by way of interest was not claimed by the assessee in computing the income. In such a situation, the liabilities by way of interest did not constitute expenditure incurred in earlier years and, therefore, on writing back the amount in profit and loss account, they cannot be deemed to be the income of the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the CIT(Appeals) in this behalf. However, there is another aspect, namely, tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e mistake committed at the time of preparation of return of income by inadvertence in the amount of Rs. 1,00,18,799/- which was adopted in place of 83,24,819/-, while working out the deduction under Section 43B of the Act. The explanation of the appellant was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and he proceeded to levy of penalty of Rs. 6,22,538/-, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd., (2010) 191 TAXMAN 179 (Delhi). Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 3rd September, 2013 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved from this order, the appellant is before us with the present appeal. 3. It was submitted by the learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w. 5. We heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. During the course of penalty proceedings the appellant tendered an explanation saying that the additions were as a result of bona fide mistaken occurred at the time of preparation of return of income. This explanation had not been accepted by the Assessing Officer without assigning any reasons as to why the explanation is not bona fide. We are of the considered opinion that the appellant had no intention of concealing the particular of the claim made, having regard to the fact that full disclosure was made of the items written off in the schedule XI financial statement, and the appellant on its own before the detection of the same by the Assessing Officer had offered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to us that all that has happened in the present case is that through a bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return, failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. This can only be described as a human error which we are all prone to make. The calibre and expertise of the assessee has little or nothing to do with the inadvertent error. That the assessee should have been careful cannot be doubted, but the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. 20. We are of the opinion, given the peculiar facts of this case, that the imposition of penalty on the assessee is not ....