STEPATHLON LIFESTYLE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -13(2)(2), MUMBAI

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in passing the appellate order u/s. 250 of the Act in violation of principles of natural justice by not giving opportunity to be heard before dismissing the appeal.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the notice u/s.. 274 r.w.s.271 of the Act issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer Initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was invalid and illegal as the notice was issued without mentioning specifically as to whether penalty is sought to be levied for “concealing the particulars of income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” thereby passing the Penalty Order u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act which is invalid and illegal.

The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income which would warrant imposition of penalty of INR. 6,00,000/- on the appellant.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in confirming penalty of INR. 6,00,000/-u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.

Ground no.3 -We take up this first which pertains to merits.Brief facts of the case are, assessee a Private Limited Company and filed Return declaring total income of Rs (-)14,19,939/- for A.Y.2014-15. The case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment Order was passed u/s.143(3) of the Act assessing total income at Nil, disallowing several expenses which were not claimed by assessee in the return i.e. Provision for Gratuity amounting to Rs.10,24,253/- Provision for Leave Encashment amounting to Rs.6,05,349/- and Donation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The assessee contended that the said disallowances was inadvertently left out to be disallowed by the Tax Auditor. Hence, due to non-reporting to such disallowances in the Tax Audit Report, it missed disallowing the same while filing the return. No sooner, it realized the mistake during the assessment proceedings, the said disallowances were accepted by the assessee and no appeal was preferred against the quantum proceedings before any appellate authorities. However, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Before him, it requested for not levying the penalty by stating that the error committed was inadvertent and there was no malafide intention. Disregarding, the same penalty order was passed levying penalty of Rs 6,00,000/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

In the subsequent appeal before the ld.CIT(A),who observed that the penalty order states, “Assessee had deliberately not disallowed Provision for Gratuity amounting, Provision for Leave-encashment and Donation, thereby it had filed inaccurate particulars of its income totalling to Rs.18,29,602/- and had sought to evade tax of Rs.5,65,346/- ."The AO concluded in para 5 of the penalty order: “Considering the facts of the case, that the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of its income, I hereby levy a penalty of Rs.6,00,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act 1961.”

1 Before him, it was contended by the assessee that they had of income on the basis of the tax audit report prepared by their chartered accountant, appellant should not be penalized for the same. The appellant argued that the assessee had not made disallowance in income tax return for “Provision for Gratuity" based on the tax audit report prepared by the auditor as there was no amount mentioned in clause 21(e) of the said report on such disallowance. Similarly, regarding provision for leave encashment, it submitted that the tax auditor in clause 26(1) did not mention that said amount was disallowable under section 43B of the act. Hence, even assessee made an omission while filing such return of income. The appellant further submitted that since, the Income tax return was filed based on the tax audit report the error are so obvious. Hence, there was no intention of the assessee to either conceal the income nor the assessee has intention to give inaccurate particulars.

2 The assessee also submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings details and particulars from time to time as required by the AO including representation during personal hearings and submitted the revised computation of income wherein assessee had declared above disallowance which inadvertently was not considered in the original return of income with detailed justifications for the same.

3 The ld.CIT(A) concluded that the present case involved significant omissions that cannot be excused merely as inadvertent errors. The appellant is a corporate entity engaged in business activities and is expected to maintain proper books of accounts and file accurate returns.The responsibility of filing correct returns cannot be delegated entirely to tax consultants, and the appellant cannot escape liability by claiming reliance on professional advice. The amounts involved were substantial and such significant amounts could not be overlooked as mere clerical errors.

Before us, the ld.AR has reiterated the same contentions as made before the authorities below. On the other hand, the ld.DR has placed reliance on the penalty and appellate orders.

We have carefully perused the records and heard the rival submissions.The ld.AR has repeatedly submitted that the disallowance could not be made in the return on account of inadvertent mistake on part of the Tax Auditors. We notice that there was no intention of the assessee to either conceal the income nor had the intention to give inaccurate particulars. Further, it had declared the said amount in profit and loss schedule of Income Tax Return. The only omission on its part was that it did not specifically disallow while making the computation of income. We feel that in the present case, the penalty has been levied by the AO on the inadvertent error or bonafide mistake. It is a tritelaw that no penalty can be levied on bonafide and Inadvertent mistake of the assessee. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Courtin the case of Price Water House Coopers (P) Ltd. v. CIT [348 ITR 306]wherein it was held that no penalty can be levied where there was a genuine omission on the part of the assessee where the entire details for making the addition/disallowance was very much available in the return of income filed and entire tax payment pursuant to the said disallowance made in the assessment had been duly paid.

1 In the instant case,we do not find any merit therein as the penalty has been levied solely on account of disallowance made in the assessment without establishing any concealment of income on the part of the assessee. The AO has not appreciated the fact that the assessment and the penalty proceedings are two separate proceedings. The findings given in the assessment proceedings cannot be conclusive in the penalty proceedings. Merely, because certain amounts had been disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee and no further appeal had been preferred against this action, such income will not ipso facto amount to concealment of income attracting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The authorities below have not taken due note of the fact that the assessee had duly disclosed the impugned sum in the books of account and the TAR. In the present case, in our considered opinion, the assessee has definitely committed a mistake of not disallowing the impugned sums and the information is very much available in the audited accounts and tax audit report. However, in our considered opinion, even after disallowance, it cannot be considered a concealment or filing of inaccurate particulars of income but the same has to be accepted as a bona fide mistake. Therefore, the judgment of hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Price Water House Coopers (supra), is squarely applicable.

2 In the above case also, the assessee had claimed deductions of certain sums including a provision as an expenditure but they had not disallowed the same by adding to the total income while filing the return of income. When the AO levied penalty, the hon'ble Supreme Court held that here the particulars filed by assessee were not inaccurate or there was no question of concealment of income. If we apply the case of Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. Ltd., in this case also the assessee had claimed certain expenses which were found not allowable, but failed to add it to the total income in the computation. This is identical to the facts of Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. case of Supreme Court.

3 Further,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 impugned sums to its total income. This can only be described as a human error. The assessee should have been careful which 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.

4 The hon'ble Supreme Court in another decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd., [322 ITR 158] (SC) also settled the law that quantum and penalty are distinct proceedings wherein each and every disallowance/addition made in case of the former and does not automatically attract the latter penal provision.

5 In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned appellate order and direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the ground no.3 of appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.

Since we have already deleted the penalty order on merits, the legal grounds have become academic and to our mind need not be adjudicated.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed . Order pronounced in the open court on 10/11/2025. NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (न्यायिक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) Place: मुंबई/Mumbai दिनांक / Date 10.11.2025 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno PRABHASH SHANKAR (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/