Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), assessee reiterated its submissions made before the AO to argue that there is no question of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of addition made by the AO towards donation and STT paid as the same has been rectified by filing revised statement of total income immediately after noticing the inadvertent error committed in filing return of income. The assessee further submitted that the details of donation paid and STT have been disclosed in the financial statements under the head administrative & other expenses in its accounts. Although the assessee has omitted to add back the said two amounts in its total income, but the same is on account of an inadvertent human error which cannot be considered as deliberate attempt made to evade payment of taxes. In this regard, the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd vs CIT, Kolkatta in Civil Appeal No.6924 of 2012.

"Contents of Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assessee concealing its income. There is also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. All that happened in present case is that through bonafide and inadvertent error failed to add provision for gratuity to its total income. This can only be described as a human error which we are all prone to make. The caliber and expertise of the assessee has little or nothing to do with the inadvertent error. That the assessee should have been careful cannot be doubted, but absence of due care, in a case such as the present, does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. Consequently, given the peculiar facts of this case, the imposition of penalty on the assessee is not justified."

7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has disclosed primary facts in respect of donation paid and STT paid in its return of income filed for the relevant assessment year. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee failed to add back donation paid amounting to Rs.50 lakhs and STT paid amounting to Rs.19,891 in the statement of total income. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee has filed revised statement of total income rectifying the said mistakes before completion of assessment proceedings. The reason given by the assessee for not disallowing those two items in the statement of total income is that there is an inadvertent error while filing return of income, which resulted in omission of those two items in the statement of total income. The said mistakes is only a human error which cannot be considered as deliberate attempt made to evade payment of taxes. When we examine the claim of the assessee in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd vs CIT, Kolkatta (supra), we find that the facts of the assessee's case are identical to the facts of the case decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court while deleting penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c). In the said case, although the tax auditor quantified the disallowance of certain amount, the assessee failed to add back in the statement of total income. Under those facts, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that this cannot be considered as wilful attempt made to evade payment of taxes and at best, it could be termed as a human error which we are all prone to make. In this case, on perusal of facts, we find that although the assessee has disclosed all facts in respect of those two items of expenses, but failed to add back in the statement of total income, while filing return of income. The said mistake has been rectified immediately after noticing during the course of assessment proceedings by filing revised statement of total income. Under these facts and circumstances, the AO was incorrect in coming to the conclusion that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of donation paid & STT which warrants levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant facts has rightly deleted penalty levied by the AO. We do not find any error in the findings of the Ld.CIT(A); hence, we are inclined to uphold the finding of Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue.