Income Tax News: Recently, the Bombay High Court addressed a crucial issue in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-13 Vs Pinstorm Technologies Pvt Ltd. The court deliberated on whether a penalty should be imposed for an error in uploading the Income Tax Return (ITR), considering the disallowed expenses in the Tax Audit report.
Detailed Case Analysis
The respondent, Pinstorm Technologies Pvt Ltd, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2010-2011, declaring a loss. However, during assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that certain expenses disallowed in the Tax Audit report were not added back to the total income. The AO disallowed these expenses, leading to the determination of a loss during scrutiny assessment under section 143(3).
Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated, alleging concealment of income. The assessee explained that the error occurred while electronically filing the return, where certain disallowances were not properly entered. The Managing Director affirmed that the CFO, who filed the return, made an inadvertent error by not considering the disallowances mentioned in the tax audit report.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) made a factual error in stating that the tax audit report was not filed, contrary to the AO’s acceptance of its submission. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found no intentional concealment, accepting the CFO’s mistake during return upload. The ITAT’s factual finding led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Bombay HC Decision
The Bombay High Court upheld the ITAT’s decision, emphasizing the absence of intent to conceal income. The case underscores the importance of factual considerations in penalty proceedings. The ruling sets a precedent, aligning with earlier decisions, such as the Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd. case, where penalty proceedings were annulled based on factual findings.
Keep watching our YouTube Channel ‘DNP INDIA’. Also, please subscribe and follow us on FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM, and TWITTER.
