DCIT 9(2), MUMBAI vs. MEERA COTTON SYNTHETICS MILLS P.LTD, MUMBAI

Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18/09/2013 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai,

2.1. We have duly considered the submissions of the ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in production of texturised yarn knitted fabrics and woven fabrics declared income of Rs,17,52,807/-, filed on 25/11/2006. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee relies that a loss of Rs.9,46,662/- was incurred on sale of machinery which was debited profit & loss account vide schedule No.E, however, while preparing normal computation of total income, the said amount remained to be added to the profit of the company by oversight. This mistake was brought to the notice of the 3 M/s Meeta Cotton & Synthetics Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Assessing Officer by the assessee and requested to permit the assessee to file revised return. The assessee suo-moto filed the revised computation and offered the same for taxation. The Assessing Officer duly considered the explanation of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee. At the same time, the ld. Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Now, question arises, whether the penalty was rightly levied. The obvious reply is “NO” because quantum and penalty proceedings are all together different and both should be considered independently uninfluenced by the finding in the quantum addition. Even otherwise, the assessee is fortified by the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 158 (SC). It is noted that during assessment proceedings itself, the assessee filed corrected computation of income by filing revised return, thus, neither there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. It is simple case of disallowance, therefore, the assessee further find support from the ratio laid down in price Water House Cooper Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) and CIT vs Icon Controls Pvt. ltd. (2007) 207 CTR (Del.) 592. In view of this fact and the decision mentioned hereinabove, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).