9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of doubt entertained with regard to the quantum of expenditure - assessee cannot be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing income Claim of excess loss on account of sale of motor car, it is the claim of the assessee that such excess loss was claimed inadvertently due to ignorance. AR has submitted, during the assessment proceeding the assessee has furnished a working of short term capital loss on sale of motor car and the Assessing Officer has accepted such loss and allowed carry forward of the same - excess claim of loss was because of the fact that the assessee has debited it to his profit and loss account. The explanation of the assessee that, it is a bonafide and inadvertent mistake is acceptable. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough, the assessee furnished the break-up of such expenses, however, the Assessing Officer rejecting the submissions made by the assessee disallowed the amount of ₹ 8,76,706/-. Further, he found that the assessee has claimed loss of ₹ 22,25,839/- on sale of motor car. Being of the view that such loss capital loss, hence, should have been disallowed by the assessee while computing his business income, the Assessing Officer disallowed the loss of ₹ 22,25,839/-, and added back to the income of the assessee. However, he allowed the short term capital loss on sale of motor car for an amount of ₹ 16,35,266/-. Admittedly, the couple of additions made by the Assessing Officer, as discussed above, were accepted by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars furnished by the assessee or concealment particulars by the assessee. He submitted, assessee has made a bonafide claim of deduction which has been rejected by the Assessing Officer. He submitted, merely because the assessee has accepted the disallowance / addition made by the Assessing Officer, it will not lead to the conclusion that the assessee has either furnished inaccurate particulars of income or has concealed its income. Thus, he submitted, no case of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is made out. 4. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, strongly relying upon the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted, facts on record clearly reveal that the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horized Reprehensive has submitted, during the assessment proceeding the assessee has furnished a working of short term capital loss on sale of motor car and the Assessing Officer has accepted such loss and allowed carry forward of the same. In our view, the excess claim of loss was because of the fact that the assessee has debited it to his profit and loss account. The explanation of the assessee that, it is a bonafide and inadvertent mistake is acceptable. Therefore, even in respect of this addition also, there cannot be any allegation of either furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. In view of the aforesaid, we hold that the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the present case is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
