9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anted in a case where the assessee had committed an inadvertent and a bonafide error, and had not intended or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars. As relying on Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. Versus CIT - [2012 (9) TMI 775 - Supreme Court ] failure on the part of the assessee could only be described as a human error which all are prone to make. Further, it was observed that though the assessee should have been careful, but the absence of due care would not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or had attempted to conceal its income. We find that the facts of the case before us clearly falls within the four corners of the aforesaid view taken by the Hon ble Apex Court. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.770/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 28-6-2019 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member For The Appellant : Shri N ilesh Kumar Bavaliya, A.R For The Respondent : Shri D.G. Pansari, Sr. D.R ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the year under consideration. The A.O called upon the assessee to explain as to why it had not offered the income from the sale of the aforementioned properties under the head income from Long Term Capital Gain (for short LTCG ). In reply, the assessee filed the working of the LTCG on sale of the three premises viz. Shop No. 10, Shop No.11, and Shop No.12, as under: Details of the shop Sale price (Amount in Rs.) Cost of Indexation (Amount in Rs.) Difference treated as Long Term Capital Gain (Amount in Rs.) Shop No. 10 1650000 1069824 580176 Shop No. 11 2750000 1838325 911675 Shop No. 12 2300000 1846675 453325 Total 6700000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed properties and, had offered the same for tax in the course of the assessment proceedings. In sum and substance, it was the claim of the ld. A.R that the mistake on the part of the assessee in not offering the LTCG on the sale of the aforesaid shops was totally backed by a bonafide mistake. 7. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short D.R ) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that if the case of the assessee would not have been selected for scrutiny assessment, then the said amount of LTCG would not have been offered for tax by the assessee. It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that the lower authorities had rightly imposed/upheld the penalty levied on the assessee under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee had failed to offer the LTCG on sale of three shops viz. Shop No. 10, Shop No.11 and Shop No. 12 for tax in its return of income for the year under consideration. However, at the same time, we find that the chart of the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings on learning about its aforesaid inadvertent omission in not offering the LTCG on the sale of the aforesaid shops had worked out its income under the said head and offered the same for tax. In our considered view, now when the assessee had disclosed the deduction of ₹ 67,00,000/- pertaining to sale of the aforesaid three shops from the block of assets in its balance sheet for the year under consideration, therefore, there is substantial force in its claim that the failure to offer LTCG on the sale of the said shops had inadvertently remained omitted to be shown in the return of income for the year under consideration. We are of the considered view that imposition of penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) would be unwarranted in a case where the assessee had committed an inadvertent and a bonafide error, and had not intended or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Cooper Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306. In the said case, the Hon ble Supreme Court taking cognizance of the fact th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
