TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt as evidenced by documents. 2. That the ld. Assessing Officer while imposing the said penalty and worthy CIT(Appeals), while upholding, both have erred and was wrong and unjustified as they have failed to consider and appreciate that were making of a claim of expenditure, which in fact has been actually incurred, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not tentamount to either concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars especially in view that the said honest bonafide mistake was voluntarily pointed out in written submission on record ignoring the legal citation of both the Hon'able Supreme Court of India in the case of Reliance Petro Products (P) Limited 230 CTR 320, other Courts as relied upon. 3. That the worthy CIT(Appeals) was wrong and erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the submissions and pray that an Assessing Officer can rectify a mistake u/s 154(2) of the Act which is bought to his notice as the said inadvertent claim of interest was not a fresh claim but reduction of the amounts computed as per original Return in view of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'able Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erest bearing borrowed funds; (ii). that the interest expenditure on the borrowed funds aggregated to Rs. 95,71,337/- and her ½ share worked out at Rs. 47,85,668/-; and (iii). though her entitlement towards claim of deduction in respect of the interest on borrowed capital as against the 'rental income' worked out at Rs. 47,85,668/-, however the same inadvertently on account of a bonafide mistake was wrongly claimed by her at Rs. 61,84,706/- in the 'return of income' for the year under consideration. Apart therefrom, the assessee in her aforesaid reply also explained the reason leading to the aforesaid bonafide mistake on her part. It was stated by the assessee that the said mistake had arisen for the reason that the interest expenditure of Rs. 13,10,038/- pertaining to her another loan account with ICICI Bank i.e Account Number CBL UD00001844368 which was utilized for making of investments in other concerns, was inadvertently included by her accountant while raising the aforesaid claim of interest expenditure in respect of loan raised against property. It was submitted by the assessee that the aforesaid mistake had emerged on the part of her accountant, who while preparing t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the I.T. Act, dated 09.06.2016. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the A.O in his aforesaid notice under Sec. 142(1), dated 09.06.2016, had only called upon the assessee to furnish details of rental income with complete address of the rental building and names and addresses of the tenants, alongwith the bifurcated details of the household expenses. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee in her reply, dated 27.06.2016 had voluntarily admitted the inadvertent mistake on her part as regards raising of an excess claim of deduction of interest expenditure of Rs. 13,19,038/- in respect of borrowed funds raised towards property. In sum and substance, it was the contention of the ld. A.R that the mistake in raising of the excess claim of deduction towards interest expenditure was admitted by the assessee on a suo motto basis prior to being confronted by the A.O. The ld. A.R in order to fortify his aforesaid contention drew our attention to the reply dated 27.06.2016 that was filed by the assessee with the A.O (Page 11) of assesses paper book (for short 'APB'). On a query by the bench as to why a 'revised' return of income was not filed by the assessee, it was submitted by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iture of Rs. 13,19,038/- pertaining to another loan account of the assessee with ICICI Bank i.e Account Number CBL UD00001844368, funds of which were utilized for making of investments in other concerns, was however inadvertently included by her accountant while raising the aforesaid claim of interest expenditure in respect of loan towards property. In sum and substance, it was the claim of the assessee that though admittedly the share of interest expenditure on the loans which were jointly raised by the assesses along with Mrs. Anita Sehgal worked out at Rs. 47,85,668/-, however, the same was wrongly claimed in her 'Original' return of income at Rs. 61,04,706/-. As observed by us hereinabove, the assessee explaining the reasons leading to the aforesaid mistake had submitted that the interest expenditure pertaining to another loan account i.e. ICICI CBL UD00001844368, which was utilized for making investments in other concerns was wrongly included in the interest expenditure on loan towards property by the accountant while compiling the return of income of the assessee. It is submitted by the assessee that on account of the aforesaid mistake, the claim of deduction of interest expe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... failed to file her 'Original' return of income within the "due date" as envisaged in sub-section (1) of Sec.139 of the I.T. Act, hence she remained divested of her right to undo/rectify her aforesaid mistake by filing a 'revised' return of income. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, as the assessee had in the course of the assessment proceedings by filing a 'revised' statement of computation of income came forth with a voluntary admission of her mistake of having raised an excess claim of deduction of interest expenditure of Rs. 13,19,038/- on loan against property, the same therein duly substantiates her bonafides of having inadvertently raised an excess claim of deduction in her return of income. Apart therefrom, we are of the considered view that now when the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings had voluntarily admitted the mistake that had crept in her 'return of income', then merely for the reason that she could not undo/rectify the mistake in her 'Original' return of income by filing a 'revised' return of income would not justify levy of penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in her hands. Our aforesaid view is ....