9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted, 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. As it was pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that in other years also such mistake occurred and the department has accepted the explanation given by the assessee and has not imposed the penalty. This fact is not controverted by the revenue. Therefore, under the peculiarity of the facts in the present case CIT (A) ought not to have sustained the penalty. Therefore, we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 140/JP/2013 - - - Dated:- 25-1-2017 - SHRI KUL BHARAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the particulars of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed vide letter dated 23th October, 2009 revised computation thereby the assessee submitted that while filing the return of income for the year under consideration, the assessee company had claimed an amount of ₹ 1,72,62,082.58 as dividend income and the same has been claimed exempt. It was submitted that inadvertently the same has been claimed as exempt which was offered for taxation. The AO thus computed the income of the assessee as per the revised computation filed by the assessee. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings in respect of the income declared during the course of assessment proceedings. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars of income. There is no information suggesting any deliberate or willful concealment of income/particulars in the return of income filed. The ld. Counsel submitted that the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Sir Shadi Lal Sugar General Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, 162 ITR 705 (SC) held that from the assessee agreeing to addition to his income it does not follow that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income. The assessee has only accepted certain amount to be taxed and he has not accepted that it has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed any income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44 (Del.) held that in the event o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee realized that out of various investments in mutual fund some were redeemed and reinvested and the difference between the sale proceeds of the units of the mutual funds and the amount invested was wrongly considered as dividend income instead of short term capital gain. The ld. CIT (A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee by relying on the judgment of the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kerala Transport Co., 134 Taxman 320 (Ker.). On the contrary, ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. (supra). It was pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that in other years also such mistake occur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
