{"id":5715,"date":"2012-09-26T10:13:11","date_gmt":"2012-09-26T10:13:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=5715"},"modified":"2012-09-26T10:13:11","modified_gmt":"2012-09-26T10:13:11","slug":"price-waterhouse-coopers-pvt-ltd-vs-cit-supreme-court-no-s-2711c-penalty-for-a-bona-fide-inadvertent-human-error","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/price-waterhouse-coopers-pvt-ltd-vs-cit-supreme-court-no-s-2711c-penalty-for-a-bona-fide-inadvertent-human-error\/","title":{"rendered":"Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
Click here to download the judgement (pricewaterhouse_coopers_271_1_c_penalty.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n


\nNo s. 271(1)(c) penalty for a “bona fide\/ inadvertent\/ human error”
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

The assessee filed a ROI together with the Tax Audit Report. In the Tax Audit Report, it was disclosed<\/em> that an amount of Rs. 23 lakhs towards provision for gratuity was not allowable<\/em> u\/s 40A(7). However, in the computation of income, the said amount was not disallowed. The AO also overlooked the item and omitted to make a disallowance. Subsequently, he reopened the assessment u\/s 147, disallowed the expenditure and levied penalty u\/s 271(1)(c). The assessee explained that the omission to make a disallowance had occurred because it had a separate accounts department and there was \u201csome confusion<\/em>\u201d and that the return was prepared by a non-CA<\/em> and was signed a director who proceeded on the basis that the return was correctly drawn up. The CIT (A), Tribunal and High Court affirmed the levy of penalty on the ground that since the assessee was a well known and reputed Chartered Accountant firm and a tax consultant<\/strong><\/em>, it was not expected<\/strong><\/em> to make such a mistake and that there had been a failure to discharge the strict liability<\/strong><\/em> to furnish true and correct particulars of income. On appeal by the assessee to the Supreme Court, HELD reversing all the lower authorities: <\/p>\n

Notwithstanding the fact that the assessee is undoubtedly a reputed firm<\/strong> and has great expertise<\/strong> available with it, it is possible that even the assessee could make a “silly” mistake<\/strong>. The fact that the Tax Audit Report was filed along with the return and that it unequivocally stated that the provision for payment was not allowable u\/s 40A(7) indicates that the assessee made a computation error<\/strong> in its return of income. Apart from the assessee, even the AO who framed the original assessment order made a mistake in overlooking the contents of the Tax Audit Report. The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question<\/strong> of the assessee concealing<\/strong> its income. There is also no question<\/strong> of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars<\/strong>. All that happened in the present case is that through a bona fide<\/strong> and inadvertent error<\/strong> failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. This can only be described as a human error<\/strong> which we are all prone to make. The calibre and expertise<\/strong> of the assessee has little or nothing<\/strong> to do with the inadvertent error<\/strong>. That the assessee should have been careful cannot be doubted, but the absence of due care<\/strong>, in a case such as the present, does not mean that the assessee is guilty<\/strong> 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. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nContrast with Zoom Communications<\/strong> 327 ITR 510 (Del)\/ Escorts Finance<\/strong> 328 ITR 44 where it was held that in the era of no-scrutiny assessment, plea of \u201coversight<\/em>\u201d was not acceptable and penalty had to be imposed as a deterrent. But see also Societex<\/a><\/strong> (Del) where a similar liberal view was taken.\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Notwithstanding the fact that the assessee is undoubtedly a reputed firm<\/strong> and has great expertise<\/strong> available with it, it is possible that even the assessee could make a “silly” mistake<\/strong>. The fact that the Tax Audit Report was filed along with the return and that it unequivocally stated that the provision for payment was not allowable u\/s 40A(7) indicates that the assessee made a computation error<\/strong> in its return of income. Apart from the assessee, even the AO who framed the original assessment order made a mistake in overlooking the contents of the Tax Audit Report. The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question<\/strong> of the assessee concealing<\/strong> its income. There is also no question<\/strong> of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars<\/strong>. All that happened in the present case is that through a bona fide<\/strong> and inadvertent error<\/strong> failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. This can only be described as a human error<\/strong> which we are all prone to make. The calibre and expertise<\/strong> of the assessee has little or nothing<\/strong> to do with the inadvertent error<\/strong>. That the assessee should have been careful cannot be doubted, but the absence of due care<\/strong>, in a case such as the present, does not mean that the assessee is guilty<\/strong> 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<\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/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":[4,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5715","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-supreme-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\/5715","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=5715"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5715\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5715"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5715"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5715"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}