9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 457 - AT - Income TaxPenalty 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.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of concessional tax rate under Section 111A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for alleged concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Concessional Tax Rate under Section 111A: The assessee declared a Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) of Rs. 512.78 lakhs from the sale of shares and applied a concessional tax rate under Section 111A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The concessional rate is applicable only if the transactions have suffered Security Transaction Tax (STT). During assessment proceedings, it was found that the shares sold did not suffer STT, making the concessional rate inapplicable. The assessee immediately agreed to pay tax at the normal rate, and the Assessing Officer (AO) computed the tax accordingly. 2. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c): The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), which penalizes concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee contended that it did not conceal any income or furnish inaccurate details, attributing the error to an oversight in tax computation. The AO, however, imposed a penalty of Rs. 76.91 lakhs, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Tribunal's Consideration: The Tribunal examined whether the application of a concessional tax rate due to a clerical error constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed all relevant details and the mistake occurred in tax computation, not in income declaration. It was argued that the error was bona fide and not an attempt to evade tax. Precedents and Legal References: The Tribunal referred to several precedents where penalties were deleted in similar circumstances: - Asia Attractive Dividend Stock Fund Mother Fund v. Dy. Director of Income Tax (International Transaction): The Tribunal canceled the penalty, noting that the error was a clerical mistake and the assessee had disclosed all material facts. - ACIT v. Smt. Cecilia Haresh Chaganlal: The Tribunal held that applying a wrong tax rate does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars if all details are disclosed. - CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC): The Supreme Court held that making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars if all facts are disclosed. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had incorrectly appreciated the facts, as the income declared by the assessee and assessed by the AO was the same. The error was in tax computation, not in income declaration. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had made a bona fide mistake and had not concealed any income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the penalty, emphasizing that a clerical error in tax computation does not warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
|
