2012 (8) TMI 982

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ging the order dated 23.09.2010 of the CIT(A)-16, Mumbai Appellant has filed following Grounds of Appeal: "1.The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the penalty of ₹ 88,337/- levied by the A.O under section 271(1))(c) of the Act on the ground that the appellant had invested less amount in Capital Gain Bonds under section 54EC of the Act to claim exemption in respect of Long T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... thorities failed to appreciate that the wrong advice / mistake/ error of judgment on the part of the Appellant's Chartered Accountant cannot be equated with concealment on the part of appellant so as to invoke section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, modify or amplify any of the aforesaid grounds at or before the hearing. The Appellant prays that the reliefs be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onds. So, he restricted the exemption to ₹ 67.15 lakhs only. Assessee did not prefer any appeal about the said disallowance. 3. For the excess claim, made by the assessee, u/s.54 EC the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1) (c) of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee AO held that it was convenient judgment of the assessee to claim an exemption that wa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng the sums he paid taxes accordingly, that he did not file any appeal against the order of the AO in quantum proceedings, that it was not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealing of income. He relied upon the cases of Reliance Petrochemicals (322ITR158) and Udayan Mukherjee (291ITR318). Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that assessee had not disclosed the correct fact .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is not a basis for levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c). In our opinion it was a case of bonafide mistake. Considering the above, we delete the penalty imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars. In our opinion principles enumerated in the cases cited by the AR also support our views. As a result, appeal filed by the assessee stands Allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th August, 2012.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X