9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claim of a petty sum of 7,87,734/-. The property was appearing in the fixed assets schedule along with other properties, therefore, for all practical purposes, it was treated as a business asset and the depreciation was, accordingly, claimed in the books of account. This aspect is not disputed. It was only at the time of computation of income that the assessee should have made the addition to the profits as per P&L A/c because the income from this property was returned under the head income from house property. Under such circumstances it cannot be disputed that human error could have crept into while making the computation. Thus, it is evident that assessee did not misrepresent the facts at any stage of proceeding. - Decided in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he returned income of the assessee. The assessee submitted that the addition made by the AO was instantly agreed by the assessee during the course of assessment because the assessee realized that accounting error had crept in the computation and, therefore, no penalty should be levied. The AO, however, did not accept the assessee's contention based on various case laws and levied a penalty of ₹ 2,67,751/- u/s 271(1)(c), which was the minimum imposable being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the AO's act ion. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. Sole effective ground taken is as under: "The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming penalty of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, therefore, there was no reason to make a false claim of a petty sum of ₹ 7,87,734/-. The property was appearing in the fixed assets schedule along with other properties, therefore, for all practical purposes, it was treated as a business asset and the depreciation was, accordingly, claimed in the books of account. This aspect is not disputed. It was only at the time of computation of income that the assessee should have made the addition to the profits as per P&L A/c because the income from this property was returned under the head income from house property. Under such circumstances it cannot be disputed that human error could have crept into while making the computation. Thus, it is evident that assessee did not misrepresent the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
