2012 (5) TMI 188 - HC - Income Tax

Deletion of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) Held that - Found by the Tribunal that all the figures of the earlier years losses were available with the Department and as such it cannot be said that there was any deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to furnish inaccurate particulars - the explanation given by the assessee that it was a case of human error while preparing Schedule 6 and as soon as the mistake was detected, the figures were rectified was not any attempt made by assessee to justify the figures mentioned in Schedule 6 filed along with the original return and the Assessing Officer himself admitted the fact Tribunal rightly held it is not a case either of concealment of income or of furnishing inaccurate particulars in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2004-2005.

Analysis:
The assessing officer imposed a penalty of Rs.1,45,00,000 under section 271(1)(c) on the ground of inaccurate particulars of income due to the assessee carrying forward business losses at a higher figure. The CIT(A) set aside the penalty order, citing it as a bonafide mistake promptly rectified by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty, emphasizing that it was a case of human error in preparing Schedule 6, rectified upon detection. The Tribunal noted that the figures were available with the Department, indicating no deliberate attempt at furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The appellant contended that the penalty reasons were not addressed by the authorities, alleging deliberate concealment. However, the respondent argued that both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal thoroughly examined the issue, concluding it was not a case of concealment or inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal's finding that the mistake was rectified during assessment proceedings and no deliberate attempt was made by the assessee was upheld.

The Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings, determining no fault with the order. The Tribunal's findings were upheld as findings of fact, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The appeal against the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was ultimately rejected based on the factual background and the Tribunal's reasoned decision.