TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f filing of return i.e. 30.09.2008 and return was filed on the same date at 11.30 p.m. in a hurry. Due to this unavoidable circumstance, the inadvertent mistake in claiming the brought forward losses occurred which was subsequently rectified by filing the revised computation of income before the completion of assessment. We may see tax audit report u/s 44AB for the year under consideration wherein brought forward losses or unabsorbed depreciation is shown as nil. The DR has not disputed this point that the assessee filed a revised return withdrawing the claim of brought forward losses before completion of original assessment proceedings. In this situation, the assessee could not be held to be guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. 2. Although the assessee has taken as many as six grounds in this appeal but except ground no.1, other grounds are argumentative and supportive to the main ground no. 1 which reads as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty of ₹ 2,47,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)( c) by the Assessing Officer ignoring the fact that the assessee has neither concealed the particulars of its income nor furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) on 10.12.2010 at an income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Income Tax(A) but remained empty handed because the appeal of the assessee was also dismissed. Now, the aggrieved assessee is before this Tribunal in this second appeal with the main ground as mentioned hereinabove. 6. We have heard rival arguments of both the parties and carefully perused the record and paper book filed by the assessee spread over 23 pages. Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty ignoring the fact that the assessee has neither concealed the particulars of its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars thereof. Ld. counsel of the assessee further submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) grossly erred in upholding the penalty and ignoring the submissions of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore completion of assessment proceedings and the same has been found to be false by the Assessing Officer. The counsel of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court, Hon ble Jurisdictional High of Delhi and Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court:- 1. Price Warehouse Coopers (P) Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) 2. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Brahmaputra Construction Ltd. (2011) 348 ITR 339 )Delhi) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sidhartha Enterprises (2009) 184 Taxman 460 (P H) 4. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Escorts Finance Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 44 (Delhi) 8. Replying to the above, ld. DR submitted that undisputedly, the assessee made a claim pertaining to brought forward losses/unabsorbed d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sses or unabsorbed depreciation as per Annexure 9 on page no. 20A is shown as nil. The DR has not disputed this point that the assessee filed a revised return withdrawing the claim of brought forward losses before completion of original assessment proceedings. 10. On this point, ld. counsel of the assessee has stressed ratio of the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Warehouse Coopers (P) Ltd. (supra) wherein their lordships held that where tax audit report filed along with return unequivocally stated that the provision for payment of gratuity was not allowable u/s 44A(7) of the Act but due to bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. 11. In this situ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
