TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal is time barred by 86 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. A perusal of the application shows that the assessee received the order of CIT(A) on 13/02/2020. As per the provisions of the Act, the due date for filing of the appeal was 08th April, 2020, whereas, the appeal was filed on 08th June, 2020. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay was caused due to closure of office on account of Covid-19 pandemic. The Ld. AR placed reliance on The Taxation & Other Laws (Relaxation of certain provisions) Ordinance, 2020 whereby the limitation for filing of the appeals was extended. We are satisfied that the delay, if any in filing of the appeal was not deliberate, but was for the reasons be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the mistake is bonafide, no penalty should be levied. In support of his contention, the Ld. AR inter alia placed reliance on the following decisions:- 1. Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT - 348 ITR 306 (SC) 2. CIT vs Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. - 252 ITR 92 (Bom) 3. CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158 (SC) 4. On the other hand, Shri Milind Chavan representing the department, vehemently defended the impugned order. The Ld. DR submitted that it is not a case of limited scrutiny. The expenditure in respect of CSR was claimed by the assessee in order to reduce tax incidence. The Ld. DR submitted that the case laws cited by the AR of assessee are distinguishable and referred to the decisions on which the CIT(A) ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee rectified the mistake by filing revised computation. As is evident from notice dated 4/9/2017 issued under section 142(1) of the Act (at page 74 of the paper book), the assessing officer had made enquiries only on two issues i.e. (i) low income & high loans/advances/investments, and (ii) investment in unlisted equities. Apparently, the mistake in claiming CSR expenditure was not pointed by the AO. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that merely because the assessee had claimed expenditure which was not accepted or was not acceptable to revenue, that by itself, would not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant extract of the judgment rendered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted out that the dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that the Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms; (i) an item of receipt may be suppressed fraudulently; (ii) an item of expenditure may be falsely (or in an exaggerated amount) claimed, and both types attempt to reduce the taxable income and, therefore, both types amount to concealment of particulars of one's income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We do not....