Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 457 - ITAT MUMBAIPenalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - concessional rate provided u/s 111A of the Act is not applicable to the STCG declared by the assessee - mistake in computation of tax on the STCG pointed - Held that:- The assessee has committed a bonafide mistake in computation of tax on the STCG. Further, there is no allegation that the assessee has concealed any particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income relating to STCG. The assessee has explained that the mistake was committed by the clerk who has fed the data into the computer for preparing the return of income. The assessee has voluntarily submitted the details of STCG to the AO by duly bifurcating the STCG into (a) the STCG which suffered Security Transaction Tax (STT) and (b) which did not suffer the STT. The details to submitted by the assessee proves the bonafides of the assessee and the same supports the explanation of the assessee. Further, the assessee has also written another letter duly accepting the mistake and has also requested the assessing officer to raise the tax demand. The foremost important point is that the income returned by the assessee has been accepted by the assessing officer as it is, without making any adjustment. Hence, in view of the judgments referred above, the mistake committed in computation of tax cannot be considered to be a case of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Even if it is considered for a moment to be a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the same has been caused due to a clerical mistake committed by the clerk who fed the details into the computer and hence the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Price waterhouse coopers (P) Ltd (2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT ) supports the case of the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the view that the facts and circumstances of the case does not warrant levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the impugned penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|