Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 955 - ITAT MUMBAIPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - claiming double depreciation - CIT(A) cancelled penalty levy - Held that:- Though the CIT(A) recorded that the assessee voluntarily informed the Assessing Officer about the inadvertent mistake and filed a revised return the fact remains that it cannot be considered as a revised return. It was only upon examination of the return and the Assessing Officer having called upon the assessee to explain the discrepancy, the assessee came forward to accept the default on its part. Thus, it could be noticed that the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) was not only cryptic but also based on incorrect facts. As also observed that claiming double depreciation was a reporting error committed by the tax consultant whereas learned counsel for the assessee submitted before us that it was not an error on the part of the tax consultant but it was a bona fide error on the part of the assessee-company. There are many other aspects which need to be considered and appreciated properly before appreciating as to whether it can be termed as bona fide error or it amounts to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Since the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) prima facie committed an error in basing his conclusions on wrong assumption of facts, we refrain from making any observation on the other aspects of the case. With these observations the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) is set aside and he is directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. See CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1972 (9) TMI 9 - SUPREME Court] - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.
|