TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income - Mensrea was a essential requirement of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The imposition of penalty on the assessee was not justified - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 5398/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2013 - Smt. Diva Singh And Shri Shamim Yahya,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sh. Anil Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Sh. B. Srinivas Kumar, Sr. D.R. ORDER Per Shamim Yahya: AM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXVII, New Delhi dated 03.8.2012 pertaining to assessment year 2006-07. 2. The issue raised in the appeal is that ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 66,444/- imposed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer arrived at the amount of loss disallowable at Rs. 2,17,138/- and the assessee was specifically given a show cause notice as to why the loss to the extent of Rs. 2,17,138/- should not be disallowed as per the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. The assessee in response to this specific show cause notice stated before the Assessing Officer that working of the disallowable loss as per show cause letter dated 24.11.2008 was correct. Thereafter, the assessment was completed by adding the amount of Rs. 2,17,138/- to the income of the assessee under the head income from capital gain. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) were also initiated. The Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee asking for explanation as to why the pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that there is considerable cogency in the assessee's plea that addition arose due to the mistake of the counsel of the assessee. We find that the Chartered Accountant Firm has itself acknowledged that there was a mistake on their part. In this regard, a written reply given to the Assessing Officer on 03.12.2008 through the Chartered Accountant Firm which is reproduced as under:- "That we have given letter dated 18.11.2008 in which taxable portion u/s. 94(7) for A.Y. 2006-07 has already been submitted before your honour. As regards S.No. 1 - 3 5 the record dates were not available. In the absence of record date, we were unable to calculate the disallowance u/s. 94(7). However ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee did not notice the error, it was not even noticed even by the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment order. All that had happened was that through a bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return, failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. The assessee should have been careful but the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, did not mean that the assessee was guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. On the peculiar facts of this case, the imposition of penalty on the assessee was not justified." 10. In this regard, we also place reliance upon the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
