{"id":5256,"date":"2012-07-26T05:16:08","date_gmt":"2012-07-26T05:16:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=5256"},"modified":"2012-07-26T05:17:01","modified_gmt":"2012-07-26T05:17:01","slug":"cit-vs-societex-delhi-high-court-no-s-2711c-penalty-if-inaccurate-particulars-caused-by-bona-fide-mistake","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-societex-delhi-high-court-no-s-2711c-penalty-if-inaccurate-particulars-caused-by-bona-fide-mistake\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. Societex (Delhi High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=780\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=780&varname2=societex_271_1_c_penalty.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (societex_271_1_c_penalty.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nNo s. 271(1)(c) penalty if wrong claim caused by &#8220;bona fide mistake&#8221;<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The AO levied s. 271(1)(c) penalty in respect of two issues: (i) claim of depreciation in respect of properties that were assessed under the head &#8220;house property&#8221; and (ii) claim of deduction in respect of provision for income-tax. The CIT (A) &#038; Tribunal deleted the penalty on the ground that the claim for deduction in respect of income-tax was a &#8220;<em>human bonafide clerical mistake<\/em>&#8221; as the assessee was a firm <em>not having expert chartered accountants<\/em> on its payroll. In appeal before the High Court, the department relied on <strong>Zoom Communication<\/strong> 327 ITR 510 and <strong>Escorts Finance<\/strong> 328 ITR 44 where it was held that as under no circumstances could an assessee have claimed provision for tax as a deduction, penalty was imposable. HELD by the High Court dismissing the appeal:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\nAs regards depreciation, the property was let out for the first time in the latter part of the AY. As such, the <strong>benefit of inadvertence or mechanical or repetitive claim being made can be given to the assessee<\/strong>. As regards the provision for taxation, the assessee made a claim for deduction of the provision for the <strong>first time<\/strong> in the year under appeal. There was <strong>no history of furnishing such accurate particulars<\/strong> by the assessee for the previous years. Accordingly, s. 271(1)(c) penalty is not leviable. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><!--\n\n\n\n\n\n\/\/--><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>As regards depreciation, the property was let out for the first time in the latter part of the AY. As such, the <strong>benefit of inadvertence or mechanical or repetitive claim being made can be given to the assessee<\/strong>. As regards the provision for taxation, the assessee made a claim for deduction of the provision for the <strong>first time<\/strong> in the year under appeal. There was <strong>no history of furnishing such accurate particulars<\/strong> by the assessee for the previous years. Accordingly, s. 271(1)(c) penalty is not leviable<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-societex-delhi-high-court-no-s-2711c-penalty-if-inaccurate-particulars-caused-by-bona-fide-mistake\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5256","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5256","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5256"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5256\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5256"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5256"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5256"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}