The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, has clarified that inadvertent computational errors in income tax returns, even by chartered accountants, do not constitute deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This ruling reinforces the principle that penalty proceedings require proof of intent or recklessness, not mere error.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Gopalkrishna Narla Rao, is a practicing Chartered Accountant who filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 29.10.2015, declaring a total income of Rs. 21,23,140. The return was selected for limited scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 142(1) seeking clarification. While responding, the appellant discovered inadvertent errors in his original computation and submitted a revised computation increasing his declared income to Rs. 27,11,440. The Assessing Officer accepted this revised income but initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty of Rs. 6,17,612 was confirmed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre and subsequently appealed before the Tribunal.
Key Facts
- Return filed on 29.10.2015 declaring income of Rs. 21,23,140
- Notice under Section 142(1) issued during scrutiny proceedings
- Revised computation submitted during assessment, increasing income by Rs. 5,88,300
- Errors identified:
- Interest expenditure of Rs. 3,62,966 claimed twice (once as deduction and once in house property computation)
- Rs. 3,01,415 under "income from other sources" incorrectly omitted from income and expenditure account
- Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 13,34,368 as interest expense against F&O income
- Final assessed income: Rs. 27,11,440 - identical to revised computation
- Assessing Officer allowed higher brought-forward speculation loss (Rs. 31,85,365) than claimed by assessee (Rs. 18,50,997)
- Penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) on 29.12.2017
- Penalty order passed on 14.07.2025 by NFAC, Delhi
- Appeal filed before ITAT Mumbai on 05.08.2025
- Delay of 10 days in filing appeal due to flood damage to office records on 15-16.08.2025
- Appeal admitted on 22.01.2026 after condonation of delay
- Judgment pronounced on 16.03.2026
Procedural History
- 29.10.2015: Original return filed declaring income of Rs. 21,23,140
- 2015-16: Assessment proceedings initiated under limited scrutiny
- 29.12.2017: Assessment order passed determining income at Rs. 27,11,440
- 29.12.2017: Show cause notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c)
- 14.07.2025: Penalty confirmed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi
- 05.08.2025: Appeal filed before ITAT Mumbai (delayed by 10 days)
- 22.01.2026: Hearing conducted; delay condoned
- 16.03.2026: Judgment pronounced
Relief Sought
The appellant sought deletion of the penalty of Rs. 6,17,612 imposed under Section 271(1)(c), arguing that the income variation resulted from bona fide computational errors, not deliberate inaccuracy.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an upward variation in income, arising from inadvertent computational errors rectified during assessment proceedings and accepted by the Assessing Officer, constitutes "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income" under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, warranting penalty.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel for the assessee argued that the increase in income was not concealed or deliberately understated but was the result of inadvertent double-counting and misclassification of expenses. The revised computation was submitted voluntarily during the course of assessment, before any adverse findings were made. The assessee, being a chartered accountant, was not immune to human error, and the fact that the Assessing Officer allowed a higher brought-forward loss than claimed demonstrated the complexity of the computation. Reliance was placed on Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. and Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, both Supreme Court decisions holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires proof of conscious intent or gross negligence, not mere error.
For the Respondent
The Departmental Representative contended that the assessee had deliberately understated income in the original return, as the additional income was offered only after the return was selected for scrutiny. Had the return not been selected, the additional income would have escaped assessment. The fact that the assessee is a chartered accountant, trained in tax computation, raised a presumption of deliberate concealment. The Department argued that the timing of the revision - post-scrutiny notice - indicated mala fide intent.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal carefully examined the nature of the errors and the conduct of the assessee. It noted that the revised computation was submitted during the assessment proceedings, not after a notice of demand or adverse finding. The increase in income was fully accepted by the Assessing Officer, and crucially, the final assessed income matched the revised computation exactly. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer himself allowed a higher brought-forward loss than claimed by the assessee, indicating that the computation was complex and prone to inadvertent mistakes.
"Merely because the assessee is a practicing Chartered Accountant, it cannot be said that he cannot commit any mistake."
The Tribunal distinguished between deliberate concealment and bona fide error. It held that the Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. had laid down that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires a deliberate or reckless act, not an honest mistake. The Tribunal found no evidence of intent to mislead or evade tax. The fact that the assessee corrected the error upon discovery, and that the department accepted the revised figure without dispute, negated any allegation of inaccuracy in the sense contemplated by the statute.
The Tribunal further observed that the penalty provision is penal in nature and must be strictly construed. Absent proof of conscious intent or gross negligence, the imposition of penalty is not justified, even if the original return contained an understatement.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal deleted the penalty of Rs. 6,17,612 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 14.07.2025 was set aside. No further directions were issued as the penalty was wholly deleted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bona Fide Errors Are Not Penalisable
- Practitioners must argue that any income variation arising from computational or clerical errors, if rectified during assessment, cannot attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c)
- The burden remains on the department to prove conscious intent - mere understatement is insufficient
- Taxpayers should document the discovery and correction of errors internally to establish bona fides
Revised Returns During Assessment Are Protected
- Voluntary disclosure of additional income during scrutiny proceedings, before any adverse notice, is a strong mitigating factor
- The timing of revision - post-scrutiny notice - does not automatically imply mala fide intent
- If the department accepts the revised income, it undermines the claim of concealment
Chartered Accountants Are Not Presumed Guilty
-
Professional status does not create a presumption of deliberate inaccuracy
-
Complex computations involving multiple heads of income, brought-forward losses, and interest allocations are inherently prone to inadvertent errors
-
Tribunals must assess the substance of the error, not the status of the taxpayer
-
Always retain records of internal review processes that led to revised computations
-
In penalty proceedings, emphasize the absence of concealment, the acceptance of revised figures, and the complexity of the computation
-
Cite Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. and Reliance Petroproducts as binding precedents
