9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd vs. CIT [ 2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] . 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). We are of the opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(C) of the Act. Hence, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty from the hands of the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.1912/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 6-7-2020 - Shri R.S. Syal, VP And Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Maruti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake. b. The claim of repairs and collection charges and also the interest on housing loan were inadvertent mistakes on the part of the appellant and on which the levy of penalty is not justified. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 2. Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, the crux of the grievance of the assessee is with regard to penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeal). 3. At the time of hearing through video conference, neither the assessee nor his Authorized Representative was present. We proceed to hear the appeal after re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at if the case not been selected for scrutiny the income of ₹ 16,03,281/- would have escaped taxation. The Assessing Officer, therefore, levied penalty of ₹ 4,95,410/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of ₹ 16,03,281/-. 5. During the First Appellate Proceedings, the Ld. CIT(Appeal) confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and, hence, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have perused the case records and heard the submissions of Ld. DR. In this case, the assessee has incurred expenditure under the heads a. Repair and collection charges b. Expenditure on tourist buses and c. Interest on housing loan. The Revenue has not questioned regarding the genuineness of these expenditures. Even at the ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e could make a silly mistake. The relevant portion of the observation/finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is as under: The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the Assessee concealing its income. There is also no question of the Assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. It appears to us that all that has happened in the present case is that through a bona fide and inadvertent error, the Assessee while submitting its return, failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. This can only be described as a human error which we are all prone to make. The calibre and expertise of the Assessee has little or nothing to do with the inadvertent error. That the Assessee should have been ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss on sale of machineries was concerned, P L Account filed by assessee along with return clearly described loss as loss on sale of garment unit assets--It was this loss which was added to net loss as per P L Account in computation of total income-- Chartered Accountant of assessee did not advise assessee as to correct legal position return was filed on above lines--When this was pointed out in course of assessment proceedings assessee accepted addition made by AO-- It was held that fixed assets of garment division clearly showed that assets sold were depreciable assets, thus there was enough evidence available in documents filed along with return to show that claim made by assessee were not in accordance with law--Thus, plea of assessee t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
