9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Helicopter was sold for a consideration but, the appellant had failed to reduce the entire consideration received on sale of Helicopter from opening WDV of the block of assets under which the Helicopter falls and offered to tax the excess of sale consideration over opening value WDV of block of the assets. It is not even a case of wrong claim made by the assessee in the return of income. The fact that the entire information regarding the sale of the Helicopter was available in the return of income, an accompanied document, would go to show that it is bona-fide inadvertent error and the ratio of the decision of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd [ 2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] is squarely applicable. The mere fact that the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hip firm deriving income under the head business . The Return of Income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed on 30.09.2013 declaring loss of Rs.5,09,65,530/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Circle, Kolhapur ( the Assessing Officer ) vide order dated 21.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) at a total loss of Rs.4,33,10,773/- after making addition on account of short term capital gains on sale of Helicopter of Rs.44,63,718/- with which we are concerned. The Assessing Officer also made disallowance of excess depreciation of Rs.30,14,116/- and disallowance of Helicopter expenses of Rs.19,672/-. The factual matrix of the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be levied. The reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ajaib Singh Co., 253 ITR 630 (P H) and the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Flexituff International Ltd. However, the Assessing Officer had rejected the said contention of the appellant that the mistake was inadvertent and proceeded with levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.23,77,951/- vide penalty order dated 19.09.2016. Even on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. When the appeal was called on, non-appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant had failed to reduce the entire consideration received on sale of Helicopter from opening WDV of the block of assets under which the Helicopter falls and offered to tax the excess of sale consideration over opening value WDV of block of the assets. It is not even a case of wrong claim made by the assessee in the return of income. The fact that the entire information regarding the sale of the Helicopter was available in the return of income, an accompanied document, would go to show that it is bona-fide inadvertent error and the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 25 taxmann.com 400 (SC) is squarely applicable. The mere fact that the assessee had chosen not to con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
