Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 2068 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - long term capital gains and interest income addition - HELD THAT:- Assessee resides mostly in USA and her caretaker manages all of her domestic chorus including tax matters. It is evident that she had not declared the third transaction, proportionate cost of acquisition and interest income at the first instance. The fact however remains that the impugned sale deeds pertain to the very survey numbers. We observe in these facts that possibility of overlapping in such an instance cannot be completely ruled out. Once the assessee is not managing her affairs on her own, the possibility of an inadvertent error is clearly indicated in even claiming double cost of acquisition added back later. We take into account all these facts to quote hon’ble apex court’s landmark judgment in Price Water-house Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] that such inadvertence cannot be termed as an instance attracting the impugned penalty provision in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We repeat that the assessee’s multifolded errors hereinabove inter alia in not having declared only two sale transactions instead of three, not adjusting cost of indexation on proportionate basis, not declaring interest income in 1000s of rupees and not being able to prove cost of improvement which were admitted latter on being pointed out jointly read lead us to a conclusion that it was a silly mistake on her part on all these issues. We thus draw support from hon’ble apex court’s abovestated judgment to conclude that both the lower authorities have erred in imposing the penalty in question u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The same is therefore deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|