Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

He submitted that when the case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny, the Appellant had filed submission on 28/09/2018 placing on assessment record original computation of income along with notes to computation. In the notes to computation, it disclosed that certain receipts (including Soft Skill and Non-Technical Training Charges) were not offered to tax in the return of income as well as basis for the same. The aforesaid reply was filed before the issue of questionnaire along with notice dated 16/11/2019. During the assessment proceedings, the Appellant on its own noticed that receipts of INR 1,95,86,904/- has been inadvertently considered as receipts for Soft-Skill Training and claimed as non-taxable in the return of income. In view of this inadvertent human error, vide letter dated 20/12/2019, the Appellant voluntarily offered the receipts of INR 1,95,86,904/- to tax at 15% as FIS as per Article 12 of the DTAA which resulted in reduction of the refund claimed in the return of income. The additional income voluntary offered to tax, which constituted merely 0.72% of the total taxable income declared by the Appellant in the return of income, was accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Appellant did not have any intention to evade tax. The inadvertent human error was corrected as soon as the same came to the notice of the Assessee. All the facts were placed before the Assessing Officer and the Appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income. Even if it is assumed that there was inaccurate furnishing of particulars of income, it (Assessment Year: 2016-17) was on account of inadvertent human error.

7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

8. It emerges that the Appellant had taken a legal position that receipts from Soft-Skill/Non-Technical Training was not liable to tax in India in terms of Article 12 of the DTAA since, according to the Appellant, the same did not make available any technical skill knowledge etc. Accordingly, receipts from Soft-Skill/Non- Technical Training were not offered to tax in the return of income. In the computation of income, disclosure to this effect was made by the Appellant. However, inadvertently, on account of human error, receipts of INR 1,95,86,904/- which were otherwise taxable as FIS in terms of Article 12 of DTAA, were also grouped with receipts from Soft-Skill/Non-Technical Training and therefore, the same was also not offered to tax in the return of income. During the assessment proceedings, when the aforesaid fact came to the knowledge of the Appellant, additional receipts of INR 1,95,86,904/- were offered to tax by the Appellant as additional income taxable in the hands of the Appellant as FIS in terms of Article 12 of DTAA. While framing assessment, the Assessing Officer brought to tax the aforesaid additional income of INR 1,95,86,904/- offered to tax by the Appellant. The Assessing Officer also arrived at a conclusion that receipts of INR 11,96,947/- from Soft-Skill/Non-Technical Training were taxable in India. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Assessing Officer initiated penalty (Assessment Year: 2016-17) proceedings and penalty of INR 30,57,730/- was levied on the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.