9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts of the case by confirming penalty of Rs. 4,79,464/- out of Rs. 10,00,000/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Assessing Officer. 3. The relevant facts as culled out from the materials on record are as under:- In this case, assessment u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act was completed on 24.03.2014, determining total income at Rs. 33,00,260/- as against returned income of Rs. 25,69,120/- (as per revised return). Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and Notice u/s.274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued on 24.03,2014 and duly served on the assessee. It was noticed that the assessee has not filed any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn of income, penalty for concealment could not be levied as the assessee had not concealed any facts, This decision of the Allahabad High Court is in consonance with the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sania Mirza(supra). Sir, looking to the above it is clear that our intention is not to hide any details and / or any particulars that please note. [2] Sir, Your Honorable Sir, have made addition of difference in Tax Calculation of Short Term Capital Gain disclosed in our Income and Tax paid on above. Sir, from the above para, itself speak that there is no any inaccurate particulars is there as well as no any hiding of income, as we had disclosed the same in our return of income and already tax paid on s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation it is clear that there is a lots of chance for the mistake. In our case we would like to inform you that, at the time of preparing the Return of Income, entry of Short Term Capital Gain are done in the Short Term Capital Gain on Shares instead of Short Term Capital Gain other than Shares. No concealment for change in head of income: It has been held by the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in its order dated 31/01/2013 in the case of Crown Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2768 of 2012 that where the transaction of share trading had been disclosed and the assessee had shown income from the trading as long term capital gain as well as speculation income and the long term capital gain was ultimately assessed as speculation income, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the tax as he is liable for. But due to the human mistake i.e. at the time of passing the accounting entries by an accountant and calculation mistake of Tax Practitioner at the time of calculating the tax. Sir, also there is a general clause in section 271(1)(c) is that, if the mistake done by the other parties and due to that reason the taxable income raised and on that income, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is charged. No penalty can be levied on such Income." 2. The above submission of the assessee has carefully been considered, but the same is not found to be convincing. The assessee has also submitted various judicial pronouncements in support of his above contentions, however, the same were found to be irrelevant to the facts of the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch he failed to do. Moreover, in the working of STCG for the year under consideration, the assessee has not reduced the cost of acquisition to that extent. Either the assessee should have offered the entire sale consideration in the year of transfer or that much share should have been reduced from the cost of asset while working out STCG during the year under consideration. However, the assessee has failed to do so. As it was evident that the assessee has intentionally excluded the receipts on transfer of his 50% share in the property while filing the return of income for the relevant assessment year and has also not cared to reduce the cost of the property to that extent while working out the STCG in the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e gone through the relevant record and impugned order. Learned AR filed a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-I [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC), head note of which read as under:- "It has been held that Penalty for concealment of income - Bona fide mistake - Assessment Year 2000-01 - Assessee firm filed its return of income along with tax audit report - In its tax audit report it was indicated that provision towards payment of gratuity was not allowable but it failed to add provision for gratuity to its total income - Whether it was a bona fide and inadvertent error - Held, yes - Whether assessee was not guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars of att ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
