2021 (10) TMI 783

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As noticed that assessee itself shown the said expenditure as income in the subsequent assessment year 2009-10 and demonstrated from the copy of return that the same was filed on 30th Sep, 2008 before detecting the discrepancy under scrutiny assessment. Therefore, necessary correction has already been done by the assessee before detecting the mistake pointed out by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration - We consider that decision of ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the impugned penalty is not justified. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sing Officer and ld. CIT(A). The ld. counsel has submitted that assessee had accounted the provision for interest twice by mistake and on realizing the mistake rectification entries were passed in the subsequent year and same was shown as income. The ld. counsel has also enclosed the copies of document and income tax return in the paper book showing that the same was shown as income in the subsequent year. The ld. counsel has also pleaded that assessee is state owned public sector undertaking and the mistake occurred was duly corrected and return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 after showing income of ₹ 11.90 crores was filed before detecting the discrepancy under scrutiny assessment for the year under consideration. Therefo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the light of the above fact and circumstances, we have also gone through judicial pronouncements referred by the ld. counsel decision of 322 ITR 158 (SC) Reliance Petro-Products Pvt. Ltd. 348 ITR 306 (SC) Price Watercoopers Pvt. Ltd. wherein it is held merely because assessee had claimed expenditure which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to revenue that by itself would not attract penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act. We have also gone through the judicial pronouncement of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court held that assessee firm filed its return of income. It was a bonafide and inadvertent error. Assessee was not guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X