9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at can be described as human error - thus it was human error, but does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income - CIT-A was not justified in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) and is cancelled - Decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No. 1933/Kol/2016 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2018 - Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member For The Assessee : Dr Somnath Ghosh, ld.AR For The Department : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DR ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: The above appeal by the Assessee is against the order dt. 05- 07-2016 of the CIT-A, 13, Kolkata for the A.Y 2009-10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferred an appeal before the CIT-A. The CIT-A did not consider the submissions of assessee that there was bonafide mistake which committed by the accountant at the time of computing the long term capital gain and short term capital gain. Before him in support of his contention and claim the assessee referred to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the Price Waterhouse Coopers P.Ltd Vs. CIT reported in (2012) 348 ITR 306(SC). CIT-A as such confirmed the impugned penalty by relying on various case laws. 6. Before us the ld. AR submits that details of short term capital loss and long term capital loss were filed during original assessment proceedings, which was accepted by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The mistake regarding short ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and circumstances of the case in the case of supra of the Hon ble Supreme Court, wherein it was contended that there was a bonafide inadvertent error was occurred during the submission of its return in adding the provision of gratuity to its total income and the same was rectified by an affidavit stating that due to some confusion because the person, who prepares return of income was unaware of the fact that the services of some employees had been taken over upon acquisition of a business, but they are not members of an approved gratuity fund unlike other employees of the assessee. We find that considering the submissions made through an affidavit of the Hon ble Supreme Court has rightly pointed out by the ld. AR that it was a mistake, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces. Relevant portion of the Hon ble Supreme Court is reproduced herein below:- 14. During the course of hearing this appeal against the judgment and order of the Calcutta High Court, we had required the assessee to explain to us how and why the mistake was committed. 15. The assessee has filed an affidavit dated 14th September, 2012 in which it is stated that the assessee is engaged in Multidisciplinary Management Consulting Services and in the relevant year it employed around 1000 employees. It has a separate accounts department which maintains day to day accounts, pay rolls etc. It is stated in the affidavit that perhaps there was some confusion because the person preparing the return was unaware of the fact that the services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents of the Tax Audit Report. 19. The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assessee concealing its income. There is also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. It appears to us that all that has happened in the present case is that through a bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return, failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. This can only be described as a human error which we are all prone to make. The calibre and expertise of the assessee has little or nothing to do with the inadvertent error. That the assessee should have been careful cannot be doubted, but the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
