SC: For Granting Environmental Clearance, Valid DSR a Mandatory Prerequisite  ||  NCLAT: Under IBC there is No Provision Mandating RP to Share Valuation Report  ||  NCLAT: NCLT/NCLAT Cannot Adjudicate Employment Contract Disputes Under IBC  ||  NCLAT: Can’t Reject App. for Approval of RP Solely on Basis of Withdrawal of Consent by CoC Members  ||  J&K HC: S. 37 of NDPS Act Comes Into Play When Bail of Accused is Being Considered on Merits  ||  Delhi HC: In National Capital, Permission for Felling of More Trees to be Supervised by CEC  ||  Registrar General of P&H HC Warns of Contempt in Case of Recording of Court Proceedings  ||  SC: States to Identify Laws Discriminating Against Persons Affected with Leprosy  ||  SC: Recommendations Made by SC Collegium for Judge Appointments to be Cleared Expeditiously  ||  SC: Where Serviceman Discharged from duty by Authority Onus of Proving Disability Lies on Authority    

Meyer Organics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (12 Feb 2024)

Penalty cannot be levied on assessee for bona fide mistakes which were corrected by filing the revised computation during the assessment proceedings

MANU/IU/0088/2024

Direct Taxation

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which in turn arose from the order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment year 2011-12.The only grievance of the assessee is against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

It is not a case wherein the assessee has disputed the discrepancies pointed out by the AO during the scrutiny proceedings. Further, once the aforesaid discrepancies were pointed out, the assessee accepted its mistake and filed the revised computation of income, and paid the tax difference of Rs. 22,59,394. It is undisputed that the assessee has not further challenged the aforesaid additions made by the AO in the present case.

Further, the fact that the donation given was stated in the Tax Audit Report and the deduction under Section 80G of the Act was also computed by the tax auditor, however even then the assessee failed to claim a deduction under Section 80G of the Act supports the claim of the assessee that the mistakes were sheer inadvertent human error. The assessee made bona fide mistakes in the computation of its total income while filing its original return of income, which were corrected by the assessee by filing the revised computation during the assessment proceedings.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings, present is not a fit case for the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the ground raised in the present appeal is allowed and the AO is directed to delete the penalty. Appeal allowed.

Tags : PENALTY   IMPOSITION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved