TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1072
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in holding that the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) of the IT Act was sustainable despite the explanation offered by the assessee was not found to be fault nor bonafide 2. Both the authorities below rejected the reasonable explanation offered by the assessee that the assessee had not concealed any income and had declared the entire income and the addition made was due to mistake committed by the chartered accountant who had been engaged by the assessee and consequently there was no concealment 3. Both the authorities committed an error in failing to appreciate that the mistake committed by the chartered accountant would be sufficient ground for not levy of penalty in view of the law declared by the Honorable Supreme Court i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elieve that the accounts were being maintained properly and upon coming to know of the negligence the assessee changed the auditors and prosecution proceedings have been initiated at ICAI against the chartered accountant. 4. The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee on the basis that assessee should be aware of the consequences of inaccurate particulars and concealment. The AO also stated that admitting the mistake merely 23 days before when the limitation period was due to expire to complete assessment cannot be held to be a reasonable cost and hence proceeded to levy penalty u/s.271(1)(c). 5. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) the assessee contended that the penalty proceedings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ention of the assessee is not to conceal any income. The Ld AR drew our attention to the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case (ITA No.18/Bang/2020) where the penalty u/s.271B is deleted by the Hon'ble Tribunal on the grounds that the bad professional relationship with the auditors resulting in delay in filing the auditor report is a 'reasonable cause'. The Ld AR therefore prayed that the underlying issue in the present case also the same and hence the ratio of the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case should be applied for the issue of levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) also. 8. The Ld DR supported the decision of the lower authorities. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wrong claim of the expenditure is not intentional and is based on a wrong professional advice. The fact that once the assessee is pointed out the error, the assessee has admitted the same before the AO and paid taxes is proof enough that there is no intentional concealment. 10. The coordinate bench of the Tribunal is assessee's own case (supra) has examined the claim of the assessee with regard to wrong professional advice and had deleted the penalty u/s.271B stating that it is a 'reasonable cause'. The assessee in the present appeal also contending the levy of penalty on the same premise that the assessee was under the bona fide belief that the accounts are maintained properly by the auditor and that there is no intention to conceal th....