HC deletes penalty for wrong entry by staff due to voluminous transactions

PCIT Vs Harish Kumar HUF (Delhi High Court)

It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Tribunal that the Respondent herein had voluntarily filed the revised return on 15^th December, 2017 duly disclosing the disallowance of the dividend in terms of Section 94(7) of the Act and revised its returned income to Rs. 2,33,81,340/-. It is also admitted that the Respondent has upon receipt of the assessment order issued by the AO deposited the enhanced amount of tax and the Respondent had not challenged the assessment order. The Respondent, at the first instance, admitted its mistake in computation and filed a revised return. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal noted that an error had occurred due to the wrong posting of the entry by the book-keeping staff of the Respondent with respect to the relevant dividend entry income to a wrong date. The Tribunal observed that since the Respondent had voluminous transactions, it committed an error while posting the relevant dividend entry, which was covered by one voucher since it was received on the same security. The Tribunal has observed that it was a reasonable human error which could have been committed on the part of the Respondent. The Tribunal noted that on the same security, dividends were received at two distinct dates, however, the error crept in since, the book-keeping staff posted both the entries of the dividend to the same date. The Tribunal has accepted that upon a perusal of the record that such an error was possible and therefore has accepted the submission of the Respondent that this was a bonafide error and there was no intention on its part to evade tax.

In our view, the view taken by the Tribunal is reasonable. It is a view taken after perusing the records in detail. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence has found that the Respondent has proven that it was a bonafide mistake and no substantial question of law would arise. It is not possible to accept the submission of learned counsel for the Appellant that the said finding of the Tribunal is perverse and we, therefore, do not find any merits in this appeal.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT

This is an application filed on behalf of applicant/appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 06 (six) days in filing the present appeal.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.