9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .R. for the respondent O R D E R Per Abraham P. Geroge : 1. In this appeal filed by the assessee, it assails penalty of ₹ 48,043/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short The Act ), which was confirmed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata. 2. Facts apropos are that the assessee doing Consultancy in Insurance had filed its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ropriate column for making a suo motu disallowance, resulting in the mistake. However, Assessing Officer was not impressed. According to him even during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee did not rectify the mistake. Assessee was held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. A penalty of ₹ 48,043/- was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Assessee appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. What we find is that the Assessing Officer had himself accepted that non-addition of loss on sale of fixed assets of ₹ 1,42,729/-, suo motu by the assessee, was only a mistake. There is no dispute that it was the first year of E-filing of return. Therefore it was very possible for such a mistake to happen. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c). This is all the more a good reason for us to reach an opinion that this was not a fit case where we can say that assessee had concealed any inaccurate particulars in respect of its income. In our opinion, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not warranted. Such penalty stands quashed. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
