2012 (5) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y 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.
Ashok Bhushan, Prakash Krishna, JJ. Petitioner Counsel :- A.N. Mahajan Respondent Counsel :- R.P. Agrawal The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.5.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.272/Alld/10 connected with C.O No.47/Alld/10 relating to the assessment year 2004-2005. In the memo of appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed: (1) " Whether on the facts and in the ci .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e assessment year 2003-2004. When the aforesaid fact was brought to knowledge of the assessee, the mistake was accepted by the assessee and Schedule -6 was revised. However, the Assessing Officer by the order dated 30.3.2010 levied a penalty of Rs.1,45,00,000/-. The matter was carried in appeal before the CIT(Appeal), Allahabad who by the order dated 4.6.2010 has allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty order on the finding that it was a case of bonafide mistake and as soon as the error was pointed out, the figures were revised. It was further found that Schedule 6 was carried forward of losses and depreciation was revised by the Auditors. The matter was carried further in appeal before the Tribunal by the Department. The Tribunal by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t it was a case of human error while preparing Schedule 6 and as soon as the mistake was detected, the figures were rectified. It has been 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 Tribunal took note of the fact that the Assessing Officer himself admitted that the mistake in question was rectified by the counsel of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings meaning thereby the assessee did not make any attempt to justify the figures mentioned in Schedule 6 filed along with the original return. The finding that from the noting of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X