9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars of income while the asst. order / penalty notice mentioned that the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income as well as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.1. The appellant submits that as the notice u/s. 274 is not specific and invalid, the penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) is bad in law. 3. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the penalty on the following additions made by the A.O. in the asst.- a. Disallowance of repairs and collection charges- Rs. 16,472/- b. Disallowance of depreciation on tourist buses - Rs. 15,80,329/- c. Disallowance of interest on housing loan-Rs. 6480/- 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the levy of penalty is not justified for the follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de following additions: Sr. No. Particulars Additions (Rs.) 1 Non-substantiation of repair and collection charges at rented plot of Ravimohan Park, Nandurbar. Rs. 16,472/- 2 Excess depreciation claimed on tourist buses Rs. 15,80,329/- 3 Wrong deduction claimed on account of payment of housing loan interest of under construction house property at Nashik Rs. 6,480/- Total Rs. 16,03,281/- The Assessing Officer made total addition of Rs. 16,03,281/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessee accepted the addition and did not file appeal. The Assessing Officer held that if the case not been selected for scrutiny the income of Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be levied where a bona-fide claim of the assessee was rejected by the tax department. We observe that the instant case of the assessee is akin to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd vs. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 306 SC. In that case, the crux of the issue for consideration was whether there was a bona fide and inadvertent error on the part of the assessee, warranting no imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court, although undoubtedly the assessee is a reputed firm and has great expertise available with it, despite this it is possible that even the assessee could make a silly mistake. The relevant portion of the observation/finding of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of block of assets & claimed loss thereon as revenue expenditure-In assessment proceedings Ms. Archana Shantilal Jain assessee realized its mistake & withdrew loss from P&L account-Further, assessee had also claimed excess depreciation--This happened due to mistake in calculation i.e. instead of reducing amount of depreciation on asset sold, from total depreciation, such amount was added resulting in excess claim--AO did not accept both mistakes & levied penalty--CIT (A) upheld order --Held, bonafide and inadvertent mistake of a CA while filing a return of income will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income--As far as loss on sale of machineries was concerned, P&L Account filed by assessee along with return clearl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
