Skip to main content

No S. 271(1)(c) penalty if wrong claim due to mistake/ wrong advice of CA


CIT vs. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd (Bombay High Court)


The assessee filed a return of income in which it committed two mistakes (i) Depreciation was claimed at Rs.1.70 crores instead of at Rs. 1.05 crores due to a mistake in calculation, (ii) the assessee sold its garment manufacturing machine and suffered a loss of Rs.21.68 lakhs thereon. Though the loss was on capital account, it was claimed as a revenue deduction. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee realised its mistake and withdrew the claim for excess depreciation and the claim for the loss. The AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on both issues which was confirmed by the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal held that both mistakes had occurred due to a mistake/ wrong advice given by the Chartered Accountant and that there was a “bona fide mistake”. It was also held that “the bonafide of the assessee is established from the fact that the assessee accepted the mistake and did not prefer any appeal against the order of the AO”. On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:

The grievance of the revenue is that penalty is justifed in view of the fact that the assessee had not filed a revised return of income. However, the Tribunal noted that the time to file revised return had expired. In any event, even the revenue does not dispute that it was a bonafiide mistake on the part of the assessee. In the above view, imposition of penalty upon the assessee is not warranted.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more