SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd.
versus
Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata – I
Civil Appeal No. 6924 of 2012
September 25, 2012
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J
Leave granted.
2. The assessee is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in ITA No. 120 of 2006. By the impugned judgment, a penalty imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was upheld, though the quantum was reduced. We are of the view that on the facts of the case the imposition was not justified.
3. We are concerned with the assessment year 2000-01. The assessee provides multi-disciplinary management consultancy services and has a worldwide reputation. It filed its return of income on 30-11-2000 under section 139(6) read with section 139(6A) of the Income-tax Act (for short, ‘the Act’). As statutorily required by section 139(6A) of the Act, the assessee also filed its tax audit report under section 44AB of the Act. The Statement of Particulars filed by the assessee was in Form 3CD as required by rule 6G(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and is, in a sense, an integral part of the return.
4. In Column 17(i) of the Statement, it was stated as follows: –
