9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty imposed u/s. 271(1)( c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in partnership firm under the name and style M/s. Golden Trust Financial Services. The assessee derives his income from salary ( pension annuity from LIC and gratuity), from house property and from other sources. According to AO, the assessee disclosed 'short term capital loss (Rs.7,01,46,528/-)' instead of 'long term capital loss (Rs. 2,85,67,594/-)' and 'long term capital loss' instead of 'short term capital loss'. In explanation before the AO, the assessee stated in penalty proceedings that due to an inadvertent mistake by his accountant long term capital loss has been reduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 147 of the Act. The ld. AR argued that there was a bonafide mistake committed by the accountant, which was rectified during the re-assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and AO accepted the same u/s. 147 of the Act proceedings. By placing his reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT reported in (2012) 348 ITR 306(SC), the ld.AR of the assessee argued that in similar facts and circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of supra held that an inadvertent and bona fide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars and that can be described as human error and referred to page-45 of the paper book and prayed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f assessee in the original assessment proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the said mistake stated to have been occurred due to error committed by the accountant found detected during the course of preparation of revised return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. We find that the assessee admitted the fact of committing the said mistake by his accountant and immediately rectified the same and which was accepted by the AO u/s. 147 re-assessment proceedings. We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench ITAT Lucknow in the case of supra has also considered the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and held that mistake in filing return of income, which was rectified thereafter in the re-assessment pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person who was not a Chartered Accountant and was a common resource. 16. It is further stated in the affidavit that the return was signed by a director of the assessee who proceeded on the basis that the return was correctly drawn up and so did not notice the discrepancy between the Tax Audit Report and the return of income. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the facts of the case are rather peculiar and somewhat unique. The assessee is undoubtedly a reputed firm and has great expertise available with it. Notwithstanding this, it is possible that even the assessee could make a "silly" mistake and indeed this has been acknowledged both by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court. 18. The fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
