9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Department. Heard Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Bharadwaj, learned advocate for the respondent. It appears that while passing the assessment order the Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and had passed an order. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) while deleting the imposition of penalty had held as under : "4. I have considered the submission of the appellant and perused the assessment order as well as the penalty order. I have also gone through the assessment record and judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant. It is observed that the appellant, a firm which is engaged in the prof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment record and assessment order, it is observed that the AO had made the addition of Rs. 34,66,017/- as business income under the heading "Mis-classed Income". It is also observed that nowhere it is mentioned that the mistake of inclusion of some professional income with the income from mutual funds was detected by the AO and it is fact on record that with regard to the said income no explanation etc. was sought for by the A.O. Hence, the contention of the appellant that the aforesaid mistake was detected by the appellant itself while submitting the details cannot be ignored and in the assessment order the AO himself has mentioned in point no.3 that the A.R. of the appellant admitted the error in representation and submitted the ledge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the CIT(A), preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, as noted, while dismissing the appeal, had held as under: "10. We have considered the rival submission and carefully gone through the material available on record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee itself came to know that is accountant has committed a mistake and considered the 'Professional income of Rs. 34,66,107/- under the head 'income from mutual funds'. Which was claimed as exempt. Accordingly, the AO disallowed and added back the sum of Rs. 34,66,017/- to the income of the assessee. The explanation of the assessee was that the such mistake was attributable being an error of the accountant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
