9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We find that the assessee is totally incorrect in his assertion that there was any issue before the ITAT that the order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) is bad inasmuch as a specific limb has not been specified. This is clearly an afterthought. ITAT has erred in observing that the assessee’s explanation that they have voluntarily filed revised computation of income cannot be accepted. We find that it is submitted by the assessee that the assessee has inadvertently missed out in including the sum of ₹ 18,05,000/- as in the return of income. In this regard, we note that this issue was duly noted by the ITAT and has not been accepted. If the ITAT does not accept any submission of the assessee, by no stretch of imagination can be considered as mistake apparent from the record in the order of the ITAT liable for rectification u/s. 254(2). Another plank of the assessee’s argument is that the loose sheet found cannot be considered as “any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thins” as contemplated in the concerned section. Hence, it is claimed that no penalty is leviable on such unsustainable addition. We find that on this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re A-17. 2.7 The Assessing Officer framed the assessment order dated 31.12.2008, accepted the revised computation of total income as mentioned in para 2.6 above; however, initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) in respect of the said addition without mentioning the limb of section 271(iyc) under which he has initiated the proceedings. 2.8 The Assessing Officer by his order dated 29.06.2009 levied penalty ₹ 4,87,932 under section 271(l)(c) for concealment of particulars of income. 2.9 The Applicant carried the matter to the CIT(A) in respect of the imposition of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) by his order dated 14.9.2009 confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty. 2.10 The Applicant then filed an appeal with the Honourable Tribunal, which has been disposed of against him by the impugned order dated 15th July, 2011. 3. The Applicant on the basis inter alia of the facts mentioned in point no 2 above submits that the following mistakes apparent from record have crept in, in the impugned order of the Honourable Tribunal - 3.1 (a) The Authorised Representative of the Applicant inter alia submitted during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, under which he is intending to initiate penalty proceedings, and hence, the levy of penalty ought to be deleted. (b) The Honourable Tribunal in para 2 on page nos 2 and 3. of its order has recorded the submissions of the Authorised Representative to the effect that the A. O. has not recorded any satisfaction regarding concealment or (sic - of) income of (sic - or) furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the assessment order ...... but the same has not been adjudicated and thus, a mistake apparent on record which is rectifiable under section 254(2) of the Act. 3.3 (a) The Authorised Representative of the Applicant inter alia submitted during the course of hearing before the Honourable Tribunal that the non-disclosure of ₹ 18,05;000 in the return of income filed pursuant to notice under section 153A is an unintentional error which has been set right by filing a revised computation of total ' income, voluntarily, under cover of letter dated 20.11.2008 that is, before the completion of assessment proceedings and hence, the revised computation of total income replaces the return of income filed pursuant to notice und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng any query raised by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings has suo moto filed a revised computation of total income before the completion of assessment proceedings. Thus, the observation of the Honourable Tribunal that assessee filed the so called revised computation on 20.11,2008, may be after enquiry by the Assessing Officer..... is on facts erroneous (emphasis mine). Accordingly, the upholding of penalty is perverse. 3.4 The Honouable Tribunal has relied on the case of Kirit Dahyabhai Patel reported in 121 ITD 159 (Ahd)(TM) which, it is submitted, is not relevant to the facts of the Applicant. 4. In view of the above mistakes apparent on record that have crept in in the impugned order of the Honourable Tribunal, the Applicant prays that- (a) the Order of the Tribunal dated 15th July, 2011 be suitably amended, (b) the Tribunal may grant such further and / or other reliefs as it deems fit. 3. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. The above order of the ITAT was a consolidated order for ITA Nos. 5596 5597/Mum/2009 for A.Ys. 2003-04 and 2005-06. The Tribunal in the said order had noted the contentions of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh it may be an error of judgment. 6. Another mistake apparent from the record submitted ld. Counsel of the assessee is that during the course of hearing, it was submitted before the ITAT that the A.O. has not specified the limb of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income under which he is intending to initialise penalty proceedings and, hence, the levy of penalty ought to be deleted. For this the ld. Counsel of the assessee submits that the ITAT has recorded the submissions of the assessee that the A.O. has not recorded any satisfaction regarding the concealment of income for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We find that the ld. Counsel of the assessee is totally incorrect in his assertion that there was any issue before the ITAT that the order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) is bad inasmuch as a specific limb has not been specified. This is clearly an afterthought. 7. Another issue raised by the assessee is that there is apparent mistake that the ITAT has erred in observing that the assessee s explanation that they have voluntarily filed revised computation of income cannot be accepted. We find that it is submitted by the assessee that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
