2016 (10) TMI 1070
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al on record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that Assessing Officer levied the penalty in respect of addition of Rs. 96,45,276/-. It is noted in the impugned order that addition pertains to wrongful claim made by assessee in its return of income by not adding the sundry balances written off at the time of computation of total income. The said mistake was pointed out by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and assessee admitted the said mistake and it was submitted before Assessing Officer that as regards query relating to 'why sundry balances written off amounting to Rs. 96,45,276/- be not added back to the taxable income of the assessee company as the same is already added back in the computation of income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nct and independent and separate from assessment proceedings wherein an addition on account of honest and bonafide non-disclosure of an income can successfully be made in assessment proceedings, such addition cannot be made the basis for levy of the penalty. Assessee relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. 83 ITR 26 and decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ajaib Singh & Co. 119 Taxman 825 in which it was held that, "Merely because certain expenses claimed by assessee were disallowed by an authority could not mean that the particulars furnished by the assessee were wrong". The assessee also relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y gets selected for scrutiny year after year. So it cannot be said that the appellant was hoping to get away with such a blatantly wrong claim. The mere fact that the mistake had been pointed out by the A.O. during the assessment cannot mean that the claim itself at the time of filing of return was with the intention of deceiving the revenue. Such kinds of mistakes are quite rare but they do happen. And before imposing the penalty the surrounding circumstances have also to be seen especially in view of the fact that the case of the company gets scrutinized year after year followed by internal and external audit. The case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Limited Vs. CIT & Another [(2012 348 ITR 306 (S)] decided by the Apex Court is directly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the assessee reiterated submissions made before authorities below. 6. We have considered rival submissions and material available on record. It is not in dispute that the amount of sundry balances written off was already added back in the computation of income of Baddi Unit on which deduction under section 80IC of the Act have been claimed. The assessee explained that due to inadvertent mistake, same was omitted to be added back in the computation of income of the assessee company. It is, therefore, clear that assessee disclosed complete facts in the return of income as well as disclosed the relevant facts before Assessing Officer at the assessment stage. The assessee on realizing the mistake that sundry debtors written off have not bee....