9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is appeal but except ground no.1, other grounds are argumentative and supportive to the main ground no. 1 which reads as under:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 2,47,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)( c) by the Assessing Officer ignoring the fact that the assessee has neither concealed the particulars of its income nor furnished inaccurate particulars thereof." 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) on 10.12.2010 at an income of Rs. 7,99,390 as against nil returned income furnished after set off of losses of earlier years. The Assessing Officer vide or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Tribunal in this second appeal with the main ground as mentioned hereinabove. 6. We have heard rival arguments of both the parties and carefully perused the record and paper book filed by the assessee spread over 23 pages. Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty ignoring the fact that the assessee has neither concealed the particulars of its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars thereof. Ld. counsel of the assessee further submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) grossly erred in upholding the penalty and ignoring the submissions of the assessee that the inadvertent mistake in claiming the brought forward losses in the return by the Accounts Head of the company, who returned fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced reliance on the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble Jurisdictional High of Delhi and Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court:- 1. Price Warehouse Coopers (P) Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Brahmaputra Construction Ltd. (2011) 348 ITR 339 )Delhi) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sidhartha Enterprises (2009) 184 Taxman 460 (P&H) 4. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Escorts Finance Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 44 (Delhi) 8. Replying to the above, ld. DR submitted that undisputedly, the assessee made a claim pertaining to brought forward losses/unabsorbed depreciation which was noticed by the Assessing Officer and when notices u/s 143(2), 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued to the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return withdrawing the claim of brought forward losses before completion of original assessment proceedings. 10. On this point, ld. counsel of the assessee has stressed ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Warehouse Coopers (P) Ltd. (supra) wherein their lordships held that where tax audit report filed along with return unequivocally stated that the provision for payment of gratuity was not allowable u/s 44A(7) of the Act but due to bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. 11. In this situation, the assessee could not be held to be guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income for levying penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. Respectf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
