Bajajsons Ltd., Ludhiana V. ACIT, Ludhiana

ITA 815/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8356 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 18-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Assessment record
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 14A; 27; 2

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT & MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 815/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S BAJAJSONS LTD., VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. AAACB6875H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SARABJIT GARG RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 18.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.03.2016 ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)- LUDHIANA DATED 31.8.2015 IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DECLARING THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE AGAINST GROUND NO.2 OF APPEAL AGAINST PENALTY U/S 2 71(1)(C) INFRUCTUOUS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS ALREADY DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DECLARING THE APPEAL O F THE 2 ASSESSEE AGAINST GROUND NO.3 OF APPEAL AGAINST PENA LTY U/S 271(1)(C) INFRUCTUOUS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT AO HAS ALREADY DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. 3 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY U/S 27 1(1)(C) AGAINST ADDITION ON ACCOUNT BONUS, WHICH WAS INADVE RTENTLY CLAIMED BECAUSE OF MISTAKE IN FORM 3CD. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 2.11.2006 DECLARI NG TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 4,46,00125/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED THE ASS ESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DETERMINING ASSESSED INCOME AT RS. 4,76,37,525/ -. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST CAPITALIZATION ON THE CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS AMOU NTING TO RS. 71,286/-, CAPITALIZATION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS RS. 6,42,8 75/- CAPITALIZATION OF UPFRONT FREE AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,82,805/-, DISALLOWANCE OF B ONUS AMOUNTING TO RS. 16,55,846/- AND DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A AMOUNTING TO R S. 1 LAKH AND DISALLOWANCE AND THE EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO R S. 2,84,588/-. WHILE DECIDING THE QUANTUM APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ABOVE ADDITIONS EXCEPT THE EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION O N ELECTRIC INSTALLATIONS, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, ON THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,42,875/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITALIZATION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE DIFFERENCE, ADDITION OF RS. 2,82,805/- MADE ON ACCO UNT OF UPFRONT FREE & PROCESSING FEE AND DISALLOWANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 16 ,55,846/- ON ACCOUNT OF BONUS. 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,95,000/- (DISALLOWANC E OF RS. 6,42,875/-) AFTER ALLOWING DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 52,125/-) AN D THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF 3 APPEAL HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. SIMILARLY, REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 2,82,805/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITALIZATION OF UPFRONT FEE AN D PROCESSING FEE, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IN ITA NO. 1114/CHD/2009 DATED 21.5.2 015, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE ISSUE AND DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THIS GROUND OF APP EAL HAS ALSO BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN OUR OPIN ION, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) TO THE ABOVE EXTENT NEEDS MODIFICATION. IT I S OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6,95,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCHAN GE DIFFERENCE, WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE TRIBUNA L TO DETERMINE THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY DELETED THIS ADDITION. SINCE THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,95,000/- HAS ALREADY BEEN DEL ETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, THERE REMAINS NO BASIS FOR LEVYING PENA LTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT WHERE THE ADDITIONS MAD E IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS LEVIE D, ARE DELETED, THERE REMAINS NO BASIS AT ALL FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, IN SUCH AS CASE, NO SUCH PENALTY CAN SURVIVE AND THE S AME IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. ACCORDINGLY, WE CANCEL THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT, ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6,95,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF E XCHANGE DIFFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 2 71(1)(C) OF THE ACT, ON THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITALIZATION OF U PFRONT FEE AND PROCESSING FEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2,82,80 5/- AFTER ALLOWING DEPRECIATION OF RS. 22,930/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IMPOSED PENALTY ON THIS ADDITION ALSO. 4 7. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 1114/CHD/2009, RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE ISSUE AND DECIDE THE SAME A FRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IT IS OBSERVED THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THIS ISS UE AS TO WHETHER PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE ON THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,82,805/-. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) ON TH IS ISSUE IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT WHERE AN ORDER OF ASSES SMENT OR RE-ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON THE ASSES SEE, HAS ITSELF BEEN FINALLY SET ASIDE OR CANCELLED BY THE TRIBUNAL OR OTHERWISE , THE PENALTY CANNOT STAND BY ITSELF AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. IN V IEW OF THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION, WHEN THE ISSUE WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION, THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CANCELLED TH E PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,82,805/- INSTEAD O F HOLDING THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. ACCORDINGLY, WE MOD IFY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) TO THE ABOVE EXTENT AND CANCEL THE PENALTY ON THE AMOU NT OF RS. 2,82,605/- LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW GR OUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE IS IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT, ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF BONUS OF EARLIER YEARS. ACCORDING T O ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DOUBLE DEDUCTION OF BONUS AMOU NTING TO RS. 16,55,846/- THAT IS BOTH IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2006-07. IN THIS REGARD, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT DEDUCTIO N FOR BONUS OF RS. 16,55,846/- WAS INADVERTENTLY CLAIMED BECAUSE OF MISTAKE IN FOR M 3CD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSES SEE AND IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING OF IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF 5 INCOME. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. 9 WE HAVE HEARD SH. SARABJIT GARG, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT LENGTH. THE MAIN CONTENTION PUT FORTH BY THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT DEDUCTION ON BONUS OF RS. 16,55,846/- WAS INADVERTE NTLY CLAIMED DUE TO MISTAKE IN FORM 3CD. ACCORDING TO HIM, WHILE PREPARING FOR M 3CD OF THIS YEAR, THE PERSON CONCERNED IN AUDITORS OFFICE, COPIED DATA F ROM FORM 3CD FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FORM 3CD FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AT SR. NO.21, THE AUDITOR HAS MENTIONED THAT RS. 16,55,846/- WAS A LIABILITY U/S 43B DISALL OWED DURING THE EARLIER YEARS AND PAID DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. UNFORTUNA TELY, AFTER COPYING DATA FROM THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06, CONCERN PERSON INADVERTENTLY OMITTED TO CHANGE THE PARTICULARS AGA INST SR. NO.21, SUBMITTED THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. UNFORTUNATELY, THE PE RSON, WHO MADE THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR FILING INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE, CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION FOR BONUS ON THE BASIS OF FORM 3CDG. SHRI SARABJIT GARG, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 1 1.11.2008 SUO MOTO WITHOUT ANY DETECTION OF CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THE SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- BONUS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05:- THE DEDUCTION FOR BONUS OF RS. 16,55,146/- HAS BEEN INADVERTENTLY CLAIMED, BECAUSE OF MISTAKE IN FORM 3 CD. THE ASSESSEE AGREES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF THIS DEDUCTI ON SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). A COPY OF THE AFORESAID LETTER IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE S 38 TO 40 OF THE ASSESSEES COMPILATION. SHRI SARABJIT GARG, LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE ALSO INVITED OUR 6 ATTENTION TO THE COPIES OF THE ORDER SHEETS RECORD ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 15 TO 20 OF THE ASSESSEES COMPILATION. ACCORDING TO LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE ON PERUSAL OF THESE ORDER SHEETS, IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT NO QUERY WAS RAISED ON THIS ISSUE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THROUGHOUT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWE VER, ON 11.11.2008, IN RESPONSE TO THE ASSESSEES AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS, T HE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WROTE ORDER SHEET AS UNDER:-- 11/11/20008 PRESENT SHRI SARABJEET GARG, CA. FIL ED LETTER DATED 11.11.2008, WHICH IS PLACED IN VOL-I. BOOKS OF A/C PRODUCED BY SHRI INDERJIT SINGH SOHI, FINANCE CONTR OLLER WHICH WERE TEST CHECKED. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BON US OF RS. 16,55,146/- IS TO BE MADE ON THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN AL READY CLAIMED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 RETURN. ALSO, DEPRECIATION ON ELECTRIC INSTALLATIONS IS TO BE MAD E AT 10% AND NOT 15%. CASE DISMISSED. SHR SARABJIT GARG, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AL SO POINTED OUT THAT AT PARA 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMS ELF OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 11.11.2008 SUBMITTED THAT THE DEDUCTION FOR BONUS OF RS. 16,55,846/- HAS BEEN INADVERTENTLY CLAIMED BECAUSE OF MISTAKE IN FORM 3CD. ACCORDING TO LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DEDUCTION OF BONUS OF RS. 16,55,846/- HAS BEEN INADVERTENTLY CLAIMED BECAUSE OF MISTAKE IN FORM 3CD. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT TH AT THIS MISTAKE WAS COMMITTED BY AUDITORS AND THE PERSON FILING RETURN, MADE CLAI M FOR BONUS ON THE BASIS OF THAT RETURN. HENCE, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED WAS ON AC COUNT OF BONAFIDE AND INADVERTENT ERROR. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEH EMENTLY ARGUED THAT AS SOON AS IT WAS DETECTED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS REPORTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE SUBMISSIONS DATED 11.11.2008. IT IS OBSERVED HERE T HAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF SHRI SARABJIT GARG, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF VI DE LETTER DATED 11.11.2008, BEFORE 7 THE FINALIZATION OF THE ASSESSMENT, SUO MOTO WITHOU T DETECTION OF ANY CONCEALMENT OR OTHERWISE THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO TH E NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE DEDUCTION FOR BONUS OF RS. 16,55,8 46/- HAS BEEN INADVERTENTLY CLAIMED BECAUSE OF MISTAKE IN FORM 3CD. IT APPEARS THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE EXPLANATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO T HE FACTS OF THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD VS. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). IN THAT CASE, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 17. HAVING HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE RATHER PECU LIAR AND SOMEWHAT UNIQUE. THE ASSESSEE IS UNDOUBTEDLY A REPU TED FIRM AND HAS GREAT EXPERTISE AVAILABLE WITH IT. NOTWITHS TANDING THIS, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT EVEN THE ASSESSEE COULD M AKE A 'SILLY' MISTAKE AND INDEED THIS HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BOTH BY THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS BY THE HIGH COURT. 18. THE FACT THAT THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED AL ONG WITH THE RETURN AND THAT IT UNEQUIVOCALLY STATED THAT THE PR OVISION FOR PAYMENT WAS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 40A(7) OF T HE ACT INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE A COMPUTATION ERRO R IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT NOTICE THE ERROR, IT WAS NOT EVEN NOTICED EVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THAT SENSE, EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SEEMS TO HAVE MAD E A MISTAKE IN OVERLOOKING THE CONTENTS OF THE TAX AUDI T REPORT. 19. THE CONTENTS OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT SUGGEST TH AT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE CONCEALING ITS INCOME. THERE IS ALSO NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHING ANY INA CCURATE PARTICULARS. IT APPEARS TO US THAT ALL THAT HAS HAP PENED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT THROUGH A BONA FIDE AND INADVE RTENT ERROR, THE ASSESSEE WHILE SUBMITTING ITS RETURN, FA ILED TO ADD THE PROVISION FOR GRATUITY TO ITS TOTAL INCOME. THI S CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS A HUMAN ERROR WHICH WE ARE ALL PRONE T O MAKE. THE CALIBRE AND EXPERTISE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS LITTL E OR NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INADVERTENT ERROR. THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD 8 HAVE BEEN CAREFUL CANNOT BE DOUBTED, BUT THE ABSENC E OF DUE CARE, IN A CASE SUCH AS THE PRESENT, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF EITHER FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME. 20. WE ARE OF THE OPINION, GIVEN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THIS CASE, THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON THE ASSESSE E IS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD C OMMITTED AN INADVERTENT AND BONA FIDE ERROR AND HAD NOT INTENDE D TO OR ATTEMPTED TO EITHER CONCEAL ITS INCOME OR FURNISH I NACCURATE PARTICULARS. 21. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWE D AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IS SET ASIDE. NO COSTS. 10. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS (P) LTD VS. CIT (SUPRA) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN TH E INSTANT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE SUO MOTO CAME FORWARD AND STATED THAT DEDUCTION FOR BONUS OF RS. 16,55,846/- HAS BEEN INADVERTENTLY CLAIMED BECAUSE OF MISTAKE I N FORM 3CD AND AGREED TO THE DISALLOWANCE. THE ASSESSEE NOTICED THAT DEDUCT ION AGAINST BONUS HAS BEEN WRONGLY CLAIMED AND THIS FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NO TICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREA FTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED THE QUERY IN THE ORDER SHEET. IT IS CLEAR T HAT A PHOTOCOPY OF THE FORM 3CD ANNEXED BY THE TAX AUDITOR TO FORM NO. 3CA WAS PROD UCED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS NOTICED THAT AT SR. NO.21 OF THI S FORM, THE AUDITOR HAS MENTIONED RS. 16,55,846/- WAS A LIABILITY U/S 43B D ISALLOWED DURING THE EARLIER YEARS AND PAID DURING THE PREVIOUS YEARS. THEREFORE , PERSON WHO MADE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR FILING INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THERE ARE EXPENSES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 . IN OUR OPINION, THIS WAS AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE TAX AUDITOR. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHEN IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SIMILAR DEDUCTION HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, AND THE 9 MISTAKE WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT C ASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN THIS CASE, PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT LEVIABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE CANCEL THE PENALTY REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 16 ,55,846/-. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.03.2016 SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 16 TH MARCH, 2016 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR