Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 484 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition invoking provision of Section 50C and Capital Gain was levied - matter was referred to the DVO - revision of belated return seeked - amount was inadvertently shown in unsecured loan - whether assessee cannot be exonerated of its liability by claiming that it had filed an invalid revised return? - HELD THAT:- The assessee has submitted that this was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the Accountant of the assessee which has not been accepted by the authorities below In the case of CIT vs Fortune Hotels and Estates (P.) Ltd., [2014 (10) TMI 783 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] had expounded that when in respect of sale of property, matter was referred to DVO to determine sale consideration at a higher amount, that by itself would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) As in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs CIT [2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] had expounded that an inadvertent error cannot lead to rigours of penalty. Furthermore, a larger bench of the Honourable Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa [1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT] had expounded that when the conduct of the assessee is not contumacious, the authority may not levy the penalty. That technical and venial breach may not lead to levy of penalty. Conduct of the assessee in this case is not contumacious to warrant levy of penalty and assessee's plea that there was an inadvertent error on the part of the Accountant deserves to be accepted. - Penalty deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|