2019 (7) TMI 18

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... u/s 271(1)(c). As such, the details of general expenditures are borne out of the return of income. The revised computation with correct allocation of the said expenditure between the eligible and ineligible undertakings cannot be directly attributable to the efforts of the Assessing Officer as no show cause was issued to the assessee on this issue of incorrect allocation of the said expenses. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee should be allowed in favour of the assessee. - ITA No.539/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 27-6-2019 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao, AM And Shri Vikas Awasthy, JM For the Assessee : Shri Sharad Shah For the Revenue : Shri Sudhendu Das ORDER .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ocation of the said generation expenses. The assessee reduced the claim of deduction to the tune of ₹ 39,21,408/- and the same is the subject-matter of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty of ₹ 13,04,400/- was levied by the Assessing Officer and the same was confirmed by the CIT(A). 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the Paper Book (page 3) and submitted that the revised return of income could not be filed in time due to genuine problems with e-filing/website. But the fact that the revised return with the said corrections was filed in the month of May, 2011 prior to the completion of the assessment in De .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sel submitted that correcting the omission, if any, before the ITO discoveries it and when the revised return was filed voluntarily by the assessee, the assessee could be considered honest and cannot be held guilty of deliberately furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. Further, relying on another judgement of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohanlal Nakum vs. CIT, 255 ITR 649 (Bom.), ld. Counsel submitted that the penalty is not to be levied when the disclosure is voluntarily disclosed true facts before the assessment was made in good faith. He also brought our attention to the series of other judgements both the Jurisdictional High Court as well as other judgments of the High Court and submitted the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X