TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the accounting entries in his books as well as paid the tax as he is liable for. But due to the human mistake i.e. at the time of passing the accounting entries by an accountant and calculation mistake of Tax Practitioner at the time of calculating the tax. See Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-I [2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein held the calibre and expertise of the assessee has little or nothing to do with the inadvertent error. Absence of due care, in a case such as the present does not mean that the assessed is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. Imposition of penalty on the assessee is not justified - Decided in favor of asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued on 28.08.2014 and on 09.09.2014 and duly served on the assessee. In reply to the said notice issued, the assessee stated as under:- [1] Sir, Your Honorable Sir, have made the addition of ₹ 7,31,142/- regarding the Short Term Capital Gain and the same was not disclosed in our income. Sir, the contention of hiding the Income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars is basically wrong. Sir, it was a genuine mistake done by the Professional Accountant at the time of passing the Accounting Entries, so it is clear at our site that we had recorded the entries in our Books of Accounts. Where there is a genuine mistake, penalty for concealment is not leviable : It has been held by the Madhya Pradesh High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars that please note. Sir, from the above para it clear that there is no any intention of the assessee is not to avoid any tax and /or any particulars but it called a genuine mistake done by the Tax Practitioner at the time of Preparing the Return. For the year under consideration there is two types of Short Term Capital Gain Tax and the Tax rate as well as calculation for both the Short Term Capital Gain was different and due to that reason the mistake was done by the Tax Practitioner at the time of calculating the Tax. Sir, we explain the calculation for both the types of Short Term Capital Gain, below: [1] Short Term Capital Gain on sale of Shares: Sir, Short Ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culars of the transaction had been disclosed and the transactions were not shorn transactions. Sir, from the above explanations and information and Judgment from Honorable ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench, it is clear that the intention of the assessee is not to hide any income and any particulars but there is Data Entry mistake done by the Tax Practitioner only that please note. Sir, looking to the above fact, it is clear that, the intention of the assessee is not to hide and / or avoid any particulars in his books accounts but is a genuine human mistake. Sir, go through the section 271(1)(c), the section itself speak that if the assessee has furnished and / or provide any inaccurate particulars/details/formation and the assessing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was also mentioned in the penalty order that it was noticed that STCG of ₹ 16,41,057/- has shown on sale of land. Such STCG was taxable at the rate of 30%. However, the assessee had worked out the tax at 15% instead of applicable rate of 30%. During the course of assessment proceedings, in response to various queries raised in this regard, the assessee submitted that the matter was noticed by him only during the course of assessment proceedings. As the assessee was not in a position to offer any explanation in support of his bogus claim, the STCG income was ordered to be taxed as per the rates stipulated. 4. Further, the assessee has shown STCG on sale of property, being land situated at Survey No.131 at Nikol. The said property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. A.Y. 2011-12, an amount of ₹ 7,31,142/- was reduced from the cost of the property and an addition of ₹ 7,31,142/- was made. 4. Against the said order assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the5. Further, on analysis of the facts of the case, it becomes clear that it is a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As regards the tax rate to be adopted, the fact that the assessee has intentionally charged the tax at a lower rate, is evident from the fact that even in the revised return filed on 07.01.2012, the assessee had worked out the tax on STCG at 15% only. It cannot be treated as a case of ignorance of law as the assessee is well aware of the provisions of IT Act and has been filing his return of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
