Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1315 - ITAT MUMBAIPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - inadvertent omission in not offering the LTCG on the sale of the aforesaid shop - HELD THAT:- ‘Chart’ filed by the assessee alongwith balance sheet, reveals beyond any doubt, that the deduction pertaining to ‘building premises’ was duly disclosed by the assessee in the aforesaid ‘block of assets’. Assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings on learning about its aforesaid inadvertent omission in not offering the LTCG on the sale of the aforesaid shops had worked out its income under the said head and offered the same for tax. When the assessee had disclosed the deduction of ₹ 67,00,000/- pertaining to sale of the aforesaid three shops from the ‘block of assets’ in its balance sheet for the year under consideration, therefore, there is substantial force in its claim that the failure to offer LTCG on the sale of the said shops had inadvertently remained omitted to be shown in the return of income for the year under consideration. We are of the considered view that imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) would be unwarranted in a case where the assessee had committed an inadvertent and a bonafide error, and had not intended or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars. As relying on Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. Versus CIT - [2012 (9) TMI 775 - Supreme Court] failure on the part of the assessee could only be described as a human error which all are prone to make. Further, it was observed that though the assessee should have been careful, but the absence of due care would not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or had attempted to conceal its income. We find that the facts of the case before us clearly falls within the four corners of the aforesaid view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|