TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be levied if any bona fide mistake is involved - Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 2040/Del/2009 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2013 - Shri G. D. Agrawal And Shri A. D. Jain,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Surender Kumar, CA For the Respondent : Shri Satpal Singh, Sr. DR ORDER Per A. D. Jain, Judicial Member: This is department's appeal for Assessment Year 2001-02 against the order dated 02.03.2009, passed by the CIT (A)-XIX, New Delhi, deleting the penalty of Rs. 3,67,324/-, imposed on the assessee u/s 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act. 2. An application for adjournment has been filed by the assessee for the reason that the ld. Counsel for the assessee is out of station. However, finding that the matter can be proceeded with as s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Rs.67,87,196/- 6. 17.02.2006 ITAT passes orders and relief to assessee matter partly remanded back to A.O. 7. 07.12.2006 Assessment Order passed u/s 143 (3) and 254 by assessing authority at Rs.17,14,193/- 8. 28.06.2007 Penalty of Rs.3,67,324/- u/s 271 (1)(c) imposed by A.O. 4. The reasons for initiating penalty proceedings in respect of capital gain of Rs. 23,76,608/- declared by the assessee in the revised computation of income, are as follows:- "In the present case the facts and circumstances clearly reveal that the offer of tax additional income was made subsequent to enquiries being made by the A.O. the material available on record to clearly leads to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of general show cause notice/questionnaire by the assessee. Therefore, undoubtedly, the amount of Rs. 23,76,608/- was voluntarily declared by the assessee under the head of capital gain before any detection of concealment by the department, as correctly observed by the Ld. CIT (A) and then, this amount was voluntarily offered for taxation by the assessee before any detection of suppressed/concealed income. As against such declaration by the assessee on 20.02.2004, the general show cause notice was issued by the Assessing Officer only on 26.02.2004. The Ld. CIT (A) has specifically mentioned in para 15 of the impugned order that having gone through the record, these details/dates were found to be correct. Further, the Ld. CIT (A) has al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aped attention of the assessee and this mistake was rectified as soon as it was realized, by filing the revised computation, declaring the missing transactions. Indeed, it is well settled that penalty cannot be levied if any bona fide mistake is involved, as held in: i) 'K.C. Builders vs. CIT' (2004) 135 Taxman 461 (SC); ii) 'Dilip N. Shroff vs. JCIT, Mumbai'; iii) 'CIT vs. Ashok Taker' (2008) 170 Taxman 471 (Del); iv) 'CIT vs. Rajiv Garg" (2008) 175 Taxman 184 (P H); v) 'T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT' (2007) 161 Taxman 340. 8. No decision to the contrary has been brought to our notice. 9. In view of the above, finding no merit therein, the grievance sought to be raised by the department by way of the ground of appeal raised stands r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
