AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 72
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 13 [CIT(A)] erred in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ('the Act') of rs. 31,94,040/- on the ground that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income which were not bonafide and thereby concealed the income." 2. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3), the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 94,89,134/- to the total income of the assessee on account of advance tax written off debited to the P&L account. The assessee did not dispute the addition of the said amount as it was not disallowed by the assessee itself in the computation of income due to oversight and bonafide mistake. The Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of the disallowance of the said amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax written off in the audit report. The assessee has accordingly disallowed all the expenses which were pointed out in the tax audit report to be disallowed and, therefore, it was only a bonafide and inadvertent mistake that the assessee could not disallow the said amount of advance tax written off. Thus the Ld. Authorized Representative has submitted that there was no question of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the assessee when the assessee has computed the total income as per the tax audit report. It was only a bonafide and inadvertent error on the part of the assessee while filing the return of income. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ited as well as u/s 40(a)(i) and 40(a)(ia) under serial no. 6, 8, 12, 13 14, 15 & 16. These disallowance has been made in computation of income as suggested by the tax auditors in the tax audit report. We find that in the tax audit report there was no disallowance either suggested or set out by the auditors in respect of advance tax written off of Rs. 94,89,134/-. There is no dispute that the assessee has returned loss of Rs. 11,754,483/- prior to set off the brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation which amounting to Rs. 1,427,292,335/-. Therefore, for the year under consideration, the non disallowance of advance tax written off makes no change in the tax liability of the assessee due to the huge amount of unabsorbed depreciation o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated that the provision for payment was not allowable u/s. 40A(7) of the Act, indicated that the assessee made a computation error in its return of income. Apart from the fact that the assessee did not notice the error, it was not noticed even by the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment order. In that sense, even the Assessing Officer had made a mistake in overlooking the contents of the tax audit report. contents of the tax audit report suggested that there is no question of the assessee concealing its income. There was also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. In the opinion of the Supreme Court through a bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return, failed to add the provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. On further appeal, the Tribunal in the impugned order records a finding of fact that by inadvertent mistake interest @ 6% on the Government of India Capital Index Bonds was shown as tax free bonds. The Tribunal concluded that there was no desire on the part of the respondent-assessee to hide or conceal the income so as to, avoid payment of tax on interest from the bonds. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed upon the respondent-assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the fact that the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact that there was an on the part of the....