TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer are against the principles of natural justice. 4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, amend, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other." (B) Vide assessment order dated 19/12/2018 passed u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act. The assessee's total income/loss was determined at (48,71,176)/-; as against the returned loss of Rs.50,39,439/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, an addition of Rs.1,68,263/- was made on account of personal expenses of the Directors. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced as under: "3. Addition on account of personal expenses: It was observed that assessee-company had disallowed a part of its expenses as personal expenses of the directors in its computation of income. However, this disallowance was less than the amount which the auditor had specified in his report in Form 3CD. Vide show cause dated 14.12.2018, the assessee was asked as to why should these expenses which were not in the nature of business expenses be disallowed and treated as its income for AY 2016-17. In its reply dated 17.12.2018, the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion filed before learned AO (B.3) The following compilation of judgments were also filed from the assessee's side: -Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 400/211 Taxman 40/348 ITR 306 (SC) -DCIT, Mumbai Vs Shah Rukh Khan [2018] 93 taxmann.com 320 (Mumbai-Trib.) CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 322/322 ITR 158 (SC) -Tristar Intech (P.) Ltd vs. ACIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 392 (Delhi-Trib.) -Vimalachal Print & Pack (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2022] 137 taxmann.com 415 (Ahmedabad-ITAT) (C) At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative ("AR" for short) for the assessee drew our attention to the summary of the case filed as a part of the aforesaid paper book. The relevant portion of the summary of the case is reproduced as under: "FACTS: Under instructions from the appellant, we would like to submit the following: -The appellant had filed its return for the year under reference, declaring loss of Rs.50,39,439/- on 17.10.2016. - The learned AO had made addition of Rs.1,68,263/- to the total income while passing order u/s 143(3) of the Inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... without any malafide intention. Therefore, revised computation of income was filed before the learned AO at the time of assessment proceedings (Refer Annexure- D). Thus, your lordships would agree that amount disallowed was not hidden in the accounts: The expenditure claimed is clearly stated in the accounts filed before the learned AO. Moreover, the details called for by the AO were also submitted. The learned AO did not find the details or particulars wrong or incorrect. The appellant had filed revised computation of income (Refer Anexure-D) during assessment proceedings wherein an amount of Rs.1.68,263/-, being personal in nature, inadvertently omitted to be considered in computation of income without any malafide intention was added back. Therefore, there is neither concealment nor filing of any inaccurate particulars on part of the appellant. Moreover, amount disallowed on account of personal expenses of directors was actually bonafide mistake of oversight, not warranting levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. "Concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars" are different. Both concealment and furnishing of inaccurate part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome (loss), both were loss; and therefore, there was no likelihood of the assessee gaining any immediate advantage in terms of tax liability for the year under consideration (Asst. Year 2016-17). The Ld. AR placed strong reliance on the following judgments. -Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 400/211 Taxman 40/348 ITR 306 (SC) -DCIT, Mumbai Vs Shah Rukh Khan [2018] 93 taxmann.com 320 (Mumbai-Trib.) CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 322/322 ITR 158 (SC) -Tristar Intech (P.) Ltd vs. ACIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 392 (Delhi-Trib.) -Vimalachal Print & Pack (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2022] 137 taxmann.com 415 (Ahmedabad-ITAT) The Ld. AR for the assessee further emphasized the fact that revised computation of income offering the aforesaid amount Rs.1,68,263/- for addition, was filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer as soon as the bonafide and inadvertent mistake came to the knowledge of the assessee. In view of these submissions, the Ld. AR for the assessee contended that the aforesaid penalty of Rs.51,993/- u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act should be c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee made a computational error in not disallowing 1/6th out of expenses on car amounting to aforesaid Rs.1,63,263/- being 1/6th out of motor car expenses. We accept the assessee's claim in the facts and circumstances of the specific case before us, that this computational error was due to oversight and inadvertent mistake, and that the error was a bonafide one. We are of the view that the present case before us is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against Revenue by order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case to Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 348 ITR 306 (SC), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "19. The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assessee concealing its income. There is also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. It appears to us that all that has happened in the present case is that through a bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return, failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. This can only be described as a human error which we are all prone to make. The calibre and expertise of the....