9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noted that an error had occurred due to the wrong posting of the entry by the book-keeping staff of assessee with respect to the relevant dividend entry income to a wrong date. Since the assessee had voluminous transactions, it committed an error while posting the relevant dividend entry, which was covered by one voucher since it was received on the same security. Tribunal has observed that it was a reasonable human error which could have been committed on the part of assessee on the same security, dividends were received at two distinct dates, however, the error crept in since, the book-keeping staff posted both the entries of the dividend to the same date. The Tribunal has accepted that upon a perusal of the record that such an err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BRIEF FACTS: 2. M/s Harish Kumar HUF i.e. the Respondent/Assessee (hereinafter referred to as Respondent ) filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 under Section 139(1) of the Act. In the said return, the Respondent disclosed that it had suffered a loss from the business of trading in derivatives. The Respondent had adjusted the Short Term Capital Loss (hereinafter referred to as STCL ) of Rs.31,15,27,183/- with Long Term Capital Gain (hereinafter referred to as LTCG ) to Rs.32,58,81,104/- from the sale of equities and declared income of Rs.1,43,53,921/- under the head Income from Capital Gains . The return further declared the income of interest from saving bank account and fixed deposit receipts of Rs.3,68,077/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the outset, acknowledged that it had now come to its attention that a sum of Rs.1,98,51,874/- of dividend income was not considered by the Respondent. The Respondent admitted that the provisions of Section 94(7) of the Act were duly attracted. Therefore, the Respondent stated that it has revised the computation of income and had increased its LTCG from 1,43,53,921/- to 3,42,05,795/-. The Respondent admitted to the disallowance of Rs.1,98,51,874/- under Section 94(7) of the Act. 6. The Respondent submitted that in its return that it has revised the computation of income and has offered the revised income for taxation. The Respondent filed the revised return under the cover of letter dated 15th December, 2017 and also paid the tax demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting to material for computation were duly disclosed by it. The AO thus, imposed a minimum penalty of Rs.45,52,613/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, being 100% of the tax, sought to be evaded. 10. The Respondent filed an appeal under Section 250 of the Act to the Commissioner of Income Tax, which was dismissed vide order dated 26th November, 2018. The Respondent filed a further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and perusing all the records of the Revenue authorities and the Respondent and after appreciating the facts on records, allowed the appeal of the Respondent vide order dated 19th August, 2019 and deleted the imposition of the penalty imposed. In this regard, the relevant finding of the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of sale of investments (26.3.2015) and receipt date of second dividend. We further note that AO has completed the assessment on the basis of details furnished by the Respondent, hence, under the circumstances Respondent has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income... 11. It, however, appears that during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the Appellant-Revenue (hereinafter referred to as Appellant ) initiated prosecution proceedings against the Respondent and the same are pending. 12. The Appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the order dated 19th August, 2019 of the Tribunal deleting the penalty imposed on the Respondent, on the ground that the order of the Tribunal is perverse. It is submitted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellant and perused the order of the Tribunal. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Tribunal that the Respondent herein had voluntarily filed the revised return on 15th December, 2017 duly disclosing the disallowance of the dividend in terms of Section 94(7) of the Act and revised its returned income to Rs. 2,33,81,340/-. It is also admitted that the Respondent has upon receipt of the assessment order issued by the AO deposited the enhanced amount of tax and the Respondent had not challenged the assessment order. The Respondent, at the first instance, admitted its mistake in computation and filed a revised return. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal noted that an error had occurred due to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
