TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income declared in the revised return filed on 27.2.2007. The detailed explanation submitted by the assessee on 2.4.2008 (Paper Book page 9 to 13) clarify entire facts and circumstances in which original return of income and revised return of income were filed. We further note that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted detailed justification and reasons for filing the revised return which were placed on record. We further note that the reasons offered by the assessee during penalty proceedings on the same line cannot be held as an afterthought and these submissions support the existence of bona fide reasons and cause for filing the revised return. We further note that the assessment stood framed on the revised return figure itself which also support the bona fide intention of the assessee. Under the facts and circumstances as noted above, it cannot be validly held that either the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of its income or the assessee has concealed particulars of its income and thus, penalty u/s 271(1)( c) cannot be imposed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2874/DEL/2010 - - - Dated:- 23-2-2015 - Shri Pramod Kumar And Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a return of income on 31.3.2006 i.e. last day of the relevant assessment year, declaring the income of ₹ 95,49,243/- on account of short term capital gain and long term capital gain at ₹ 38,55,115/-. The short term capital gain was chargeable to tax at 10% and long term capital gain was claimed as exempt income of the assessee. During the course of the assessment proceedings when the AO sought the details of purchase and sale of shares on which said capital gain had been claimed, the assessee filed revised return on 27.2.2007 declaring income at ₹ 1,04,72,423/- and paid additional tax of ₹ 8 lakh. The AO assessed the income as per revised return and also initiated proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the assessee for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of its income. After considering the reply of the assessee dated 2.4.2008, the AO held that the assessee had wilfully concealed its income by filing inaccurate particulars in the original return of income. The AO further held that the assessee filed revised return when details were called and in this situation, the assessee would have gotten away with suppressed income and the AO finally held that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al gain and making some other changes in the quantum of bank interest and dividend income and declaring exempt income on sale of personal effects as taxable. Ld. counsel has specially drawn our attention towards this fact that the AO finalised the assessment at the income declared by the assessee in the revised return and this fact has also not been disputed by the ld. DR. Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee filed his return declaring an aggregate short term capital gain of ₹ 95 lakh and paid tax @10% but subsequently with professional assistance and detailed working, the assessee has re-classified short term capital gain according to which short term capital gain attracting 10% tax rate was of ₹ 83 lakh and short term capital gain was to be taxed @30%. Ld. Counsel strenuously contended that all these errors in quantum proceedings and its reclassification with professional and specialised assistance was bona fide in view of changed regime of concessional tax introduced from the middle of the year and the bonafide of the assessee is evident in the original return. Ld. Counsel has further drawn our attention towards paper book of the assessee and submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has little or nothing to do with the inadvertent error. That the assessee should have been careful cannot be doubted, but the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. 20. We are of the opinion, given the peculiar facts of this case, that the imposition of penalty on the assessee is not justified. We are satisfied that the assessee had committed an inadvertent and bona fide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars. 9. Coming to the factual matrix of the present case, we note that the ld. DR has not disputed this fact that originally the assessee filed his return of income declaring short term capital gain on shares of ₹ 95,49,243/- and long term capital gain on shares of ₹ 38,55,115/- and subsequently, the assessee filed revised return declaring income of ₹ 1,04,72,423 which was accepted by the AO for the purpose of taxation. This fact has also been noted by the CIT(A) in the impugned order para 3 at page 2. 10. We further observe that as per ratio of the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the income and the AO assessed the income of the assessee at the income declared in the revised return filed on 27.2.2007. The detailed explanation submitted by the assessee on 2.4.2008 (Paper Book page 9 to 13) clarify entire facts and circumstances in which original return of income and revised return of income were filed. We further note that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted detailed justification and reasons for filing the revised return which were placed on record. We further note that the reasons offered by the assessee during penalty proceedings on the same line cannot be held as an afterthought and these submissions support the existence of bona fide reasons and cause for filing the revised return. We further note that the assessment stood framed on the revised return figure itself which also support the bona fide intention of the assessee. Under the facts and circumstances as noted above, it cannot be validly held that either the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of its income or the assessee has concealed particulars of its income and thus, penalty u/s 271(1)( c) cannot be imposed. 13. In the instant case, the AO erred in impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
