TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had inflated the expenditure and deflated the receipts to reduce the taxable income pertaining to long term capital gain. Since findings are based on justified and reasonable grounds, hence deletion of penalty is upheld - Decided in favor of assessee - I.T.A.No.623/Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2012 - SHRI A.N. PAHUJA AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JJ. Appellant by: Shri Pradeep Kumar , Sr. DR ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi dated 2.12.2009 by which the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty as imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for A.Y. 2006-07. 2. The only ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeal by the Revenue before this Tribunal. 5. Despite due knowledge of date of hearing, neither the assessee nor his representative appeared before us during hearing and looking into the issue in dispute, we find it appropriate to decide the appeal after hearing ld. DR. Therefore, we proceed to adjudicate this appeal ex parte. The ld. DR submitted that the claim for long term capital gain as returned by the assessee was incorrect and baseless in the light of the fact that the assessee was specially asked to submit computation of capital gain with relevant documentary evidence but despite several hearings, the assessee did not submit even a single detail in respect of computation of capital gain. The assessee filed computation on 27.11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgement in the case of UOI vs Dharmendra Textile Processor does not make a radical change in scheme of section 271(1)(c) but it re-emphasizes paradigm shift on burden of proof as brought about by Explanation to section 271(1)(c). v) Admission or rejection of a claim is a subjective exercise; whether a claim is accepted or rejected has nothing to do with furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. vi) Raising a legal claim, even if it is ultimately found to be legally unacceptable, cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 7. On bare reading of the impugned order, we observe that the ld. CIT(A) examined the case of the assessee and considered the explanation offered by the assessee in the legal backdrop of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings found an oversight mistake of the accountant resulting into long term capital gain on house property for Rs.1606200/- instead of Rs.140176/-. It is purely an inadvertent clerical mistake on the part of the accountant and an affidavit to this effect already filed before the ld. AO (marked as Annexure A ) and placed on record. Your honor will also appreciate the fact that the assessee has discovered the said error on its own without pointing out by the ld. AO during the course of entire assessment proceedings. The assessee immediately filed a revised computation of income bonafidely along with the challan of due tax deposited which is in turn was duly accepted by the ld. AO as clearly mentioned and selfexplanatory in the body of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such income as contemplated under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act may not be attracted. (2) The revised return having been accepted by the Department and the penalty having not been imposed with reference to the original return filed by the assessee, he cannot be considered to be guilty of concealment of income. (3) The fault, if any, was with his tax counsel and even the said tax counsel, viz. the Syndicate Bank, cannot be said to have acted in a malafide manner in preparing the return of income of the assessee wrongly. The bona fides of the assessee are proved by the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. After careful consideration of the submissions of the parties in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
