Del HC: Suo Moto Case Registered from PIL Against Order Dischar. Accused Storing Child Porn Material  ||  SC: Onus on Service Provider to Prove That Service Was Availed for Commercial Purpose  ||  Supreme Court: Arrest by GST Officers Should Not be Made on Mere Suspicion  ||  Bom. HC: Admission Obtained on False OBC Certificate, Doctor Allowed to Retain Qualification  ||  SC: NGT’s Direction to Initiate Action Under PMLA, Stayed on Ground of Lack of Jurisdiction  ||  SC: If App. Court Deals With Issues Rising for Deliberation, Omission to Sep. Frame Issues Not Fatal  ||  Del HC: Evidence in Predicate Offence by Accused Who Becomes Approver Can’t be Used in PMLA Procee.  ||  Del. HC: Order Passed in Favour of Indian Hotels Company Over Use of ‘Ginger’ Trademark  ||  Supreme Court: Notice Issued to IBBI Over Ambiguity in Uploading NCLT Orders  ||  SC: It is Up to the Arbitral Tribunal to Adjudicate Upon Construction of Terms of Contract    

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