M/s. Chennai Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1230/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1143 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Revised return; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1230/MDS/2012 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/S. CHENNAI CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., M/S.SUBBARAYA AIYAR PADMANABHAN & RAMAMANI ADVOCATES 75A, DR.RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI-600 004. PAN: AAAAC0982C VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE-VIII, CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : MR . SHAJI P.JACOB, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 TH MARCH, 2013 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IMPUGNING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) -IX DATED 26.03.2012. THE CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY AMOUNTING TO ` 9,03,51,910/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A CO- OPERATIVE BANK. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF IN COME FOR THE ITA NO.1230/MDS/2012 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON 31.10.2007 DECLARING TO TAL INCOME OF ` 37,55,85,736/- AND CLAIMING REFUND OF ` 4,28,56,920/-. PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-0 8 THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) AVAILABLE TO THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2007, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P CEASE S TO BE APPLICABLE TO CO-OPERATIVE BANKS OTHER THAN A PRIM ARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY CO-OPERATI VE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. THUS, THE DEDUCTION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 80P TO THE CO-OPERATIVE BANKS WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2006 WITH THE INSERTI ON OF SUB- SECTION (4) TO SECTION 80P. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMENDED PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 80P. 3. HOWEVER, ON THE ADVICE OF M/S. A.V.NARAYANASWAMY AND N.CHOODAMANI, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS THE ASSESS EE FILED A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 11.8.2008 OFFER ING INCOME OF ` 7,01,54,758/- AND CLAIMING REFUND OF ` 13,63,18,800/-. IN THE REVISED RETURN, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P TO THE TUNE OF ` 30,08,91,930/- AND ADDITIONAL ITA NO.1230/MDS/2012 3 DEPRECIATION TO THE TUNE OF ` 45,39,048/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING AMOUN TS:- I) DIVIDEND INCOME ` 22,07,954/-; II) INTEREST INCOME FROM THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN CO-OPERATIVE BANK ` 2,17,10,000/-; & III) DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY ADOPTING THE ORIGINAL COST OF PURCHASE OF ASSETS INSTEAD OF DEDUCTING ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION ` 70,85,711/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 24.8.2009 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12 .2009 DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEE DINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR CONCEALING A ND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIDE OR DER DATED 29.06.2010 PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IMPOSED PENALTY OF 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVA DED AMOUNTING TO ` 9,03,51,910/-. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE SAID ITA NO.1230/MDS/2012 4 ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 26.03.2012 DISMISSED TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IMPUGNING THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A). 5. SHRI R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERAT IVE BANK AND ITS EMPLOYEES ARE NOT EXPERT IN HANDLING TAX MA TTERS. MOST OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE CO-OPERATIVE BANKS ARE ON DEPUTATION AND ARE THE EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE GOVER NMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 80P IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. THIS WAS FOR T HE FIRST TIME THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN AFTER INSERTION OF SUB- SECTION (4) TO SECTION 80P WITH EFFECT FROM 1.3.20 07. THE BENEFIT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P WERE WITHDRAW N FROM THE CO-OPERATIVE BANKS WITH THE SAID AMENDMENT. THE RET URNS WERE FILED BY THE OFFICIALS OF THE ASSESSEE BANK AS PER THE ADVICE OF THE TAX EXPERT/CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ORIGINAL RETURN ON 30 TH OCTOBER, 2007 ALONG WITH STATEMENT DISCLOSING ITS ENTIRE INCOME. HOWEVE R, IT WAS ITA NO.1230/MDS/2012 5 ON THE OPINION OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS M/S. A.V.NARAYANASWAMY AND N.CHOODAMANI THAT REVISED RET URN WAS FILED ON 11.8.2008 CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P AND ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATI ON. THE COUNSEL PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL RET URN, OPINION FROM THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND THE REVISED RETU RN ALONG WITH THE COMPUTATION SHEET AT PAGE 1,3 AND 4 RESPEC TIVELY OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE EM PLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE BANK ACTED IN A BONAFIDE MANNER. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION THAT THE ACT OF THE OFFICIAL S OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT WITH AN INTENTION TO SUPPRESS THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE COUNSEL PLACED ON RECO RD THE AGENDA OF THE GENERAL MEETING HELD ON 9.9.2008 WHER EIN IT WAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT REVISED RETURN HAS BEEN FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINION OF THE CHARTERED ACC OUNTANT AND THE BANK IS EXPECTING REFUND OF ` 13,63,13,598/-. 6. THE OFFICIALS OF THE ASSESSEE BANK ACTED IN A GO OD FAITH. HOWEVER, WHEN THE BANK RECEIVED NOTICE UNDER SECTIO N 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 30.11.2009, THE BANK OFFICIALS REA LIZED THEIR MISTAKE AND IMMEDIATELY THROUGH AR FILED REPLY ON 9 .12.2009 ITA NO.1230/MDS/2012 6 ADMITTING THAT THE BANK CEASES TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR D EDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P, THEREFORE, THE BANK IS NOT CLAIM ING DEDUCTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P(2). T HE ASSESSEE FURTHER ADMITTED THAT THE REVISED RETURN F ILED IS ERRONEOUS AND, THEREFORE BE IGNORED. A COPY OF T HE REPLY TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1) IS PLAC ED ON RECORD AT PAGE 11 AND 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK. AGAIN ON 10 TH DECEMBER, 2009, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETT ER STATING THAT THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ER RONEOUS WITH RESPECT TO DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80P AND HIGHER DEPRECIATION CLAIM AMOUNTING TO ` 70,85,711/- . A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2009 IS AT PAGE 13 AND 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT VIDE LETTER DATED 12.01.2010 THE ASSESSEE MADE ANOTHER REPRESEN TATION STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN IN G OOD FAITH MAKING FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF SUCH ADDITIONS A ND THAT THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILED ON THE SPECIFIC OPINION OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HIS CONTE NTIONS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECI SION OF THE ITA NO.1230/MDS/2012 7 HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF T.ASH OK PAI VS. CIT., REPORTED AS 291 ITR 11(SC). 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DELIBERATEL Y FILED REVISED RETURN CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P AND HIGHER DEPRECIATION IN ORDER TO HOODWINK THE DEPART MENT. THE ORIGINAL AS WELL AS REVISED RETURN HAS BEEN DUL Y SIGNED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE ASSESSEE BANK. THERE FORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE RETURN HAS BEEN FILED IN A CASUAL MANNER. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT REVISED RE TURN HAS BEEN FILED ON THE OPINION OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTA NT CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR ESCAPING PENALTY. IT IS ONLY WHEN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THE ASSESSEE CONCEDED THAT CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80P AND CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN THE REVISED RETURN IS ER RONEOUS. THE DR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE VERY WEL L KNEW THAT WITH EFFECT FROM 1.3.2007 IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE F OR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P DESPITE THAT THE ASSESS EE DELIBERATELY FILED REVISED RETURN CLAIMING DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) AND HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION. FROM THE ITA NO.1230/MDS/2012 8 ACT AND CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, NO BONAFIDE MISTAK E IS MADE OUT. THE DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FILING OF I NACCURATE PARTICULARS IN THE RETURN ON THE ADVICE OF THE CHAR TERED ACCOUNTANT OR ANY TAX CONSULTANT CANNOT BE A GROUN D FOR WAIVING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). IN ORDER T O SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS, THE DR RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.506 OF 2006 IN THE CASE OF SHRI G.SOMA REDDY VS. ITO DECIDED ON 26.3.2 012 REPORTED AS 2012 TIOL-487-HC-KAR-IT. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW AS WELL AS JUDGEMENTS REFERRED TO BY BOTH THE SIDES . IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLA IM DEDUCTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P PRIOR TO 1.3.2007. AFTER INSERTION OF SUB-SECTION (4) TO SE CTION 80P BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2006, THE BENEFIT GRANTED UNDER SECTION 80P WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE CO-OPERATIVE BANKS OTHER THAN PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY CO -OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE BANK. SOME OF T HE ITA NO.1230/MDS/2012 9 EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE BANK ARE ON DEPUTATION FR OM STATE GOVERNMENT. IT IS A WELL-KNOWN FACT THAT EMPL OYEES OF SUCH CO-OPERATIVE BANKS/SOCIETIES ARE NOT EXPERTS I N HANDLING COMPLEX ISSUES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961. FOR FILING OF RETURNS AND CLAIMING DEDUCTION S UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE EMPLOYEES OF SUCH BANKS/INSTITUTIONS ARE DEPENDENT ON THE EXPERTS SU CH AS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS/ADVOCATES/TAX CONSULTANTS. 9. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESS EE BANK HAD FILED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WITHOUT CLAIMIN G DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D). SUBSEQUENTLY ANOTHER FIRM OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS GAVE ITS EXPERT OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL DEPRE CIATION. A PERUSAL OF RECORD SHOWS THAT AT THE TIME OF FILIN G OF ORIGINAL AS WELL AS REVISED RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED DE TAILED COMPUTATION SHEET ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE COMPUTATION SHEET, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ITS I NCOME FROM THE BUSINESS GIVING DETAILS OF NET PROFIT, PRO VISIONS CREATED AND DEPRECIATION CLAIMED. THERE IS NEITHER ITA NO.1230/MDS/2012 10 CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR INACCURATE PARTICULARS WE RE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN DISCLOSING THE INCOME. IT SEEMS THAT THE BANK OFFICIALS UNDER BONAFIDE IMPRESSION T HAT THE ASSESSEE BANK IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 80P, FILED REVISED RETURN CLAIMING DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 80P AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. TH E BANK OFFICIALS ACTED IN THE INTEREST OF THE BANK WHILE DISCHARGING THEIR OFFICIAL DUTY. WHEN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) AND 142(1) WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, THE OFFICIALS OF THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY ON REALIZING MISTAKE, ADMITTED THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P HAS BEEN WRONGLY CLAIME D AND THE INCOME CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ADDED BAC K AND BE ASSESSED TO TAX. SIMILARLY, FOR THE HIGHER DEPR ECIATION CLAIMED, THE ASSESSEE CONCEDED THAT IT HAS BEEN WR ONGLY CLAIMED . THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE REVISED RETURN HAS BEEN FILED BY THE EMPLOYEES OF T HE ASSESSEE IN THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE BANK AND THERE WAS NO PERSONAL GAIN IN CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 80P ITA NO.1230/MDS/2012 11 AND HIGHER DEPRECIATION. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUM ENT OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AS 3 48 ITR 306(SC) HAS HELD THAT WHERE SILLY MISTAKE HAS BE EN COMMITTED BY A REPUTED FIRM HAVING GREAT EXPERTISE, THE MISTAKE COMMITTED WAS BONAFIDE AND INADVERTENT ERRO R. THE ASSESSEE WHILE SUBMITTING ITS RETURN FAILED TO ADD PROVISION FOR GRATUITY TO ITS TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD H AVE BEEN CAREFUL BUT THE ABSENCE OF DUE CARE, IN A CASE SUCH AS THE PRESENT, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME. ON THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE, THE IMPO SITION OF PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, SILLY MISTAKE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 80P IN THE REVISED RETURN HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY THE ASS ESSEE BANK ON THE BASIS OF EXPERT ADVICE. IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P AND THE DEPRECIATION WAS ALSO ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CORRECTL Y CLAIMED, BUT IT WAS ON THE EXPERT OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITA NO.1230/MDS/2012 12 REVISED RETURN AND COMMITTED MISTAKE OF CLAIMING DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P AND HIGHER DEPRECIATION. IT IS NO T THE CASE OF THE REVENUE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED IT S INCOME OR HAS CLAIMED EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURE TO REDU CE TAX INCIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ITS INCOME ACCURATELY BUT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION WHICH IS NOT A DMISSIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ONWARDS. THE ASSESSEE WAS FILING RETURN OF INCOME F OR THE FIRST TIME AFTER THE AMENDMENT. PRIOR TO THE AMENDM ENT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. 11. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. REPORTED AS 322 IT R 158 (SC) HAS HELD THAT BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION MA KING AN INCORRECT CLAIM TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FU RNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. ITA NO.1230/MDS/2012 13 12. FOR IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) TH E PRE- CONDITION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE CONCEAL ED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ITS INCOME IN FULL AND HAS NOT FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. CLAIMING DEDUCTION OR ADDITIONAL DEP RECIATION DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PAR TICULARS OR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION IN A BONAFIDE MANNER. IN CASE , THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE SAME, THE REVENUE A UTHORITIES CAN MAKE ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 13. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. SRI SARADHA TEXTILE PROCESSORS P.LTD., REPORTED AS 286 ITR 499, WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WHILE DISMISSI NG THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE HAS HELD THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD CONCURRENTLY HELD THAT WHEN THE MISTAKE WAS POI NTED OUT, THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN ITS CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATI ON AND INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE ON THE MACHINERY AND HAD FILED REVISED RETURN. THIS ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWED THEIR BO NAFIDE. IT ITA NO.1230/MDS/2012 14 IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD MALAFIDE INTENTION OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICU LARS WITH A VIEW TO FALSELY CLAIMING DEPRECIATION AND ALLOWANCE TO EVADE TAXES. THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS BASED ON THE FACTS, WITH WHICH WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE . 14. IN ANOTHER CASE TITLED CIT VS. MS.SANIA MIRZA I N ITA NO.526 OF 2011 DECIDED ON 9.2.2012 BY THE HONBLE A NDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT DELETED THE PENALTY WHERE PENAL TY WAS IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALED HER INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ACTED I N A MALAFIDE MANNER AND IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT HER A CTIONS WERE DELIBERATE. IT WAS IN FACT BONAFIDE MISTAKE M ADE ON HER BEHALF BY THE ADVOCATE/CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND TH ERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY HER NOR WAS THERE FURNI SHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT AND THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD INITIALLY ACCEPTED THE RETURN UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT IT WAS NOT A FIT C ASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. ITA NO.1230/MDS/2012 15 15. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO AS SOON AS THE ASSESSE E CAME TO KNOW ABOUT ITS MISTAKE IN CLAIMING DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 80P, THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY CONCEDED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE REVISED RETURN HAS BEEN ERRONEOUSLY FILED AND THE AMOUNT CLAIMED AS DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 80P MAY BE ASSESSED TO TAX. 16. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGEMENTS OF THE HO NBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, THE JUDGEMENTS OF THE HONB LE HIGH COURT AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT FILING OF REVISED RETUR N BY CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGED EXPERT OPINION BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOTHING BUT AN INADVERTE NT MISTAKE. THE SAID ERROR HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE IN A BONAFIDE MANNER WITH OUT ANY PERSONAL GAIN AND IN THE COURSE OF DISCHARGE OF THE IR OFFICIAL DUTY. IN OUR VIEW THIS IS NOT A CASE FOR LEVY OF P ENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AS THERE IS NEITHER CONCEALMENT O F INCOME NOR FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ALLOW THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1230/MDS/2012 16 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON WEDNESDAY , THE 20 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P.GEORGE ) (VIKAS AWASTHY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 20 TH MARCH, 2013. SOMU COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (4) CI T(A) (2) RESPONDENT (5) D.R. (3) CIT (6) G.F.