9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case and also keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. [2013 (4) TMI 154 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be validly levied. Therefore, cancel the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals). - Decided ion favour of assessee. - IT APPEAL NO. 210 (CHD.) OF 2015 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2015 - H.L. KARWA, J. For The Appellant : K.C. Jain and Shaman Jain For The Respondent : Jitender Kumar, DR ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a mistake on the part of assessee's accountant which could not be checked by the assessee and he was unaware of such mistake. When our client came to knew about the mistake, he filed a revised return which could not be accepted because original return was filed late. It can also be seen from the previous year returns of our assessee that he was offering the whole rent received for taxation. The mistake in return of income was bona fide and no mala fide intention can be drawn in the above mentioned case. Various Hon'ble tribunals and Hon'ble Court's had already upheld the fact that no penalty for concealment is warranted in case of bona fide mistakes. Therefore Penalty under Section 271 (l)( c) is absolutely not warranted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed rental income of the remaining floor. The explanation of the assessee was that he had suo-moto revised the return on 26.4.2011, wherein he had included the rental income of ₹ 2,90,572/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee himself voluntarily declared additional income in the revised return dated 26.4.2011. No detection of concealed income was made by the Revenue Authorities and, therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. The learned D.R for the Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that in the instant case, the original return was filed on 31.3.2011 and the same was not filed in time and so any subsequent return f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut the same to the Assessing Officer. In the case of CIT v. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 592 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court while dismissing the appeal of the assessee held as under : (iii) The grievance of the revenue is that penalty is justified in view of the fact that the respondent-assessee had not filed a revised return of income. However, the Tribunal noted that the time to file revised return had expired. In any event, even the revenue does not dispute that it was a bona fide mistake on the part of the respondent-assessee. In the above view, imposition of penalty upon the respondent-assessee is not warranted. 6. In the above case, the assessee sold its garment assets and claimed loss of ₹ 21.68 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
