2015 (4) TMI 706

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y and has accepted that human errors do happen in spite of calibre, expertise and due care. Mistakes, when explained and shown to be bona fide, do not justify levy of penalty. On the question relating to addition of ₹ 5,56,254/-, the tribunal has observed that the assessee had received the said amount as dividend from a mutual fund. As per Section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd full gain was disclosed by the respondent-assessee as short-term capital gains. The assessee had paid tax @ 10% which was applicable to short-terms capital gains. The Assessing Officer had observed that tax at normal rate of 30% was applicable. The assessee accepted the said position and has paid tax and interest. In Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2012 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... should have been careful cannot be doubted, but the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. Consequently, given the peculiar facts of this case, the imposition of penalty on the assessee is not justified.? (emphasis supplied) On the question relating to addit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X