TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11-12 which AO has not modified in that year, no penalty can be levied during this year for the reason that the computation of income relied on claim made in AY. 2011-12. The penalty laid u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is therefore deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1502/HYD/2017 - - - Dated:- 11-7-2018 - SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri A.V. Raghu Ram, AR For The Revenue : Shri D. Prasad Rao, Sr.AR-II ORDER This is an appeal by assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Hyderabad, dated 19-05-2017 confirming penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act [Act]. 2. Briefly stated, assessee had filed his return of income for the AY 2012-13 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13. No sooner did the assessee came to know of this mistake, a revised computation of total income was filed. It was submitted that assessee had disclosed fully and correctly the details of his income, but due to bonafide mistake committed by his clerical staff, the set off of unabsorbed business loss and depreciation had been claimed. 2.2. AO did not accept the contention of assessee as it was only on verification made by him that it was found that there was no loss to be carried forward in AY. 2010-11. AO observed that the claim of that set off of loss from the income of the concerned assessment year could not be a bonafide clerical mistake. Further, according to him, assessee came forward only to submit the revised computation after t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that it was for AO to verify the records and allow any claim for set off of loss and based on the claim by the assessee. When such was the case holding that there was concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee was not correct and the penalty should be deleted. 3.1. But Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the same, stating as under: 04.0 The penalty order of the Assessing Officer and the submission of the appellant had been carefully considered. The appellant failed to give any reasonable explanation for the prima facie false claim of brought forward loss unabsorbed depreciation. He calls it a 'clerical' error but has not substantiated how claiming of a nonexistent loss/depreciation can be called ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accurate particulars during the year. Since mistake has happened in earlier year, the same was claimed mistakenly under a bonafide intention. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the same could have been adjusted u/s. 154 as well as they are available on record and no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not warranted. 5. Ld.DR relied on the order of AO and CIT(A) to submit that the claim was false. 6. I have considered the issue and examined the documents placed on record. Eventhough there is no loss or depreciation to be carried forward in AY. 2011-12 (as they are set off in that year) the computation however, indicated/quantified the brought forward losses and depreciation, which assessee claimed in the computation during this year. It seems th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
