Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5298 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
09-10-2020
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
25-07-2017
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1800/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 THE NAMPUR BRIHAT VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI SOCIETY LIMITED, NAMPUR, TAL. SATANA, DIST. NASHIK 424305 PAN : AAAAN1417F VS. ITO, WARD-2, MALEGAON APPELLANT RESPONDENT / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-1, NASHIK DATED ON 11-05-2017 CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.35,2 36/- IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER ALSO CALLED THE ACT) IN RELATION TO THE A.Y. 2013-14. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. IT FILED ITS RETURN DECLARING TO TAL INCOME OF RS.9,42,520/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80P O F ASSESSEE BY SMT. DEEPA KHARE REVENUE BY SHRI ACHAL SHARMA DATE OF HEARING 09-10-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09-10-2020 ITA NO.1800/PUN/2017 THE NAMPUR BRIHAT VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI SOCIETY LIMITED 2 THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,86,22,797/-. DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT TRANSPIRED THAT THERE WAS SOME INADVERTENT CALCULATION MISTAKE IN COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,24,034/-. WHEN POINTED OUT, THE ASSESS EE AGREED FOR THE SAME. THIS LED TO REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION U/S.80P BY RS.1,24,034/-. THEREAFTER, THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON SUCH REDUCTION IN DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80P. THE LD. CIT(A) ECHOED THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE AO. 3. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS APPAREN T FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT EXCESS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P OF THE ACT WAS DUE TO INADVERTENT CALCULATION MISTAKE. ON COMING TO KNOW SUCH A MISTAKE, THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE SAME AND AGREED FOR REDUCTION IN THE DEDUCTION. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE ASS ESSEE TRIED TO MISLEAD THE REVENUE BY INTENTIONALLY CLAIMING HIGHER AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION. RATHER IT IS A CASE OF INADVERTENT MISTA KE IN THE CALCULATION OF DEDUCTION U/S.80P. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (2012) ITA NO.1800/PUN/2017 THE NAMPUR BRIHAT VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI SOCIETY LIMITED 3 348 ITR 306 (SC) HAS HELD THAT NO PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) CAN BE IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF INADVERTENT AND BONA FIDE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SOMANY EVERGREEN KNITS (2013) 352 ITR 592 ALSO DELETED THE PENALTY WHICH OCCURRED DUE TO BONA FIDE AND INADVERTENT MISTAKE OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WHILE FILING THE RETURN. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT C ASE AMPLY SHOW THAT THE EXCESS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80P WAS DUE TO BONA FIDE AND UNINTENTIONAL MISTAKE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE ORDER TO DELETE THE PENALTY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 TH OCTOBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (R.S.SYAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PR ESIDENT PUNE; DATED : 09 TH OCTOBER, 2020 SATISH ITA NO.1800/PUN/2017 THE NAMPUR BRIHAT VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI SOCIETY LIMITED 4 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. THE CIT(A)-1, NASHIK 4. 5. THE PR.CIT-1, NASHIK , , / DR B, ITAT, PUNE 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 09-10-2020 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 09-10-2020 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER SR.PS 8. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. 11. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
Expert Summary
In the assessee’s case, the Assessing Officer reduced the claim of deduction u/s 80P. The assessee accepted the same since it was due to an inadvertent calculation mistake in computation of deduction. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on such reduction in deduction claimed u/s 80P.
It was held that it is not a case where the assessee tried to mislead the Revenue by intentionally claiming a higher amount of deduction. Rather, it is a case of inadvertent mistake in the calculation of deduction u/s 80P. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed in respect of an inadvertent and bona fide mistake committed by the assessee.
Relying on the above judgement, the penalty was deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT.
1:1 Consultation on Business Valuations
₹1
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Startup Compliance
₹1
Startup Dissolution Resolution
₹0
Research Collaboration Agreement
₹0
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026