9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o bonafide mistake. We agree with the finding of the Ld. CIT (A) that in such a case the levy of penalty was not justified. We therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and the same is hereby upheld. - Decided against Revenue. - ITA No.5329/M/2013 - - - Dated:- 3-12-2014 - SHRI R.C. SHARMA AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Heena Doshi, A.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 271(1)(c) holding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the levy of the said penalty. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee tendered the following submissions: During the year under consideration, we have incurred certain expenditure towards ROC filing fees for increase in author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of section 35D, ROC filing fees for authorized share capital etc. eligible for deduction and the same is available 1/5th for consecutive five years. At the time of filing of first return of income for AY 2007- 08, fact was erroneously not known that the expenses are towards subsequent increase in authorized share capital. Afterwards, when we noticed the same, during the cours ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) after going through the above submissions of the assessee observed that it was a case where the assessee had committed a bonafide error and it was not a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. He, while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC), deleted the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
