9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the taxable income for the year under consideration. However, only the loss claimed in the return, which was carried forward to future years for set-off was reduced. Further, it is also not a case wherein the assessee has disputed the computation of long-term capital loss without any substantial basis. Thus, once the discrepancy was pointed out, the assessee readily revised the statement of income and recomputed the long-term capital loss which has also been accepted by the Revenue without any variation in the assessment order. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the assessee made a bona fide mistake in the computation of a long-term capital loss in its original return of income, which was corrected by the assessee by fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and statutory notices under the Act were issued. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has claimed long-term capital loss at Rs. 7,36,071, on the sale of residential property wherein she is holding a 50% share. It was further observed that the cost of acquisition of the property, sale consideration, date of acquisition, and accordingly rate of indexation has been wrongly considered by the assessee. On pointing out the discrepancy, the assessee submitted a revised statement of income wherein the long-term capital loss was re-calculated at Rs. 1,10,174. Accordingly, the loss claimed by the assessee in return of income was reduced from Rs.7,36,071 to Rs.1,10,174 and carried forward to future years for set-off. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntal Representative by vehemently relying upon the orders passed by the lower authorities submitted that the assessee did not properly disclose the long-term capital loss and therefore penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been correctly levied. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. As is evident from the record, the assessee initially claimed long-term capital loss of Rs.7,36,071 on the sale of residential property, wherein she is holding a 50% share. On pointing out the discrepancy during the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised statement of income wherein the long-term capital loss was re-computed at Rs.1,10,174. It is not a case wherein due to incorrect comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eous . Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, it has to be tested whether the detail furnished in the return of income is incorrect or erroneous or falls. In other words the element of consciousness in furnishing inaccurate particulars of income coupled with circumstantial evidences should be present in the particular case. Unless, the characters of inaccurate particulars of income as discussed above are present in any particular case, the penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be attracted. 9.5 Thus, in view above discussion and considering the facts in totality, in our considered view the provisions of 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be attracted in the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
