9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee. The mistake has already been admitted during assessment proceedings. It is observed that the assessee was required to take WDV as per Income Tax Act as against The Companies Act as taken by the assessee and secondly, all the premises were to be considered as single block of assets. Nevertheless, the same could not be termed as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai, [in short referred to as CIT(A) ], Appeal No. CIT(A)-20/IT-85/2013-14 dated 16/08/2013 qua confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for ₹ 5.30 Lacs. None has appeared for assessee. The hearing notices sent at address given in Form 36 has returned twice. There is no intimation of change of address. Left with no option, we proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, while working out the gains. However, the WDV, in terms of Section 50, as per Income Tax Act was to be considered as cost and further the computations were to be made considering the various office premises as single block of asset. The aforesaid differences led to enhancement of gains from ₹ 72.43 Lacs to ₹ 89.43 Lacs, against which impugned penalty 271(1)(c) was initiated i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondly, all the premises were to be considered as single block of assets. Nevertheless, the same could not be termed as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income which justifies imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In our opinion, the computational error, at best, be termed as bona fide error on the part of the assessee and the assessee stood benefitted by the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
