Supreme Court Explains: Debt Becoming Financial & Operational Debt  ||  P&H HC: Model Code of Conduct Can’t Stand in Way of Execution of Judicial Order  ||  Chh. HC: Can’t Build Matrimonial Home With Bricks & Stones, Love & Respect Between Spouses Required  ||  Ker. HC: Fitting of Sensors in Buses Used as Stage Carriages Can’t be Insisted by Registration Author  ||  Kar. HC: Can’t Consider Party’s Declaration, Promise of Policies as Corrupt Practise under RP Act  ||  Bom. HC: Public Sector Banks Not Empowered to Issue Look Out Circulars Against Loan Defaulters  ||  Mad. HC: Child Needs Safe & Caring Environment While Growing up, Corporal Punishment Not a Solution  ||  Mad. HC: 2020 Amendment to Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, Struck Down  ||  Del. HC: Persons Not Accused of Deceiving Others Should Handle Haj Pilgrims  ||  Del. HC: Centre Directed to Decide Plea to Recruit Women Through CDS, Within Eight Weeks    

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