Assessee company filed return, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 3rd March 2011, determining the amount of Rs. 16,89,190/- as payable. The appeal of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) (a) of the Act strictly calculating the book profit at Rs. 2,02,08,283/-, filed on 15.10.2009. The stand of the assessee was that due to inadvertence wrong hard copy of computation due to cut and copy pest was filed and further the tax amount of Rs. 16,89,190/- was paid on 29th Nov. 2011 i.e. before completion of assessment.
The Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We note that in para 4 of the assessment order it has been categorically recorded that there was a mistake in computation of book profit and the same was pointed out by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings itself and thereafter the assessee immediately paid the taxes. It is noted that the assessee filed the revised return on 15.10.2009 and paid the taxes before completion of assessment.
In such a situation the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd 322 ITR 158 (SC) comes to the rescue of the assessee, wherein, it was held that mere making an incorrect claim does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In the present appeal the assessee filed the revised return and paid the taxes, therefore, there is no loss to the Revenue. It is also noted that there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income.
In para 3.3.5 of the impugned order there is uncontroverted finding that complete facts were disclosed along with the return and the same has been reproduced. The assessee in its return of income (schedule MAT) computed total income u/s 115JB at Rs. 47,33,537/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 1,54,74,746/- from the net profit. Thus, in view of the decision in the case of Ms. Sania Mirza ( 526 of 2011) (AP) and the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in Price Water House Cooper Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 6924 of 2012), Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bennet Colemna & Company (ITA NO. 277 of 2012 dated 26.2.2013), Somani Evergreen Knits Ltd. (ITA 1332 of 2011 order dated 21.03.2013), and CIT Vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 543 (Del.) we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), his stand is affirmed.
Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.