P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved