TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red opinion, the contention of the assessee cannot be straightway rejected that such error may occur due to software problem. We, therefore, find that the assessee is not liable for penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is found to have merit - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1287/Del./2016 - - - Dated:- 29-6-2016 - SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. Rohit Garg, C.A. For The Respondent : Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)XVI, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income electronically on 26.10.2007 declaring an income of ₹ 3,87,506/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) at an income of ₹ 4,96,250/-. Subsequently, after recording reasons on 06.06.2012, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee, in response to which the assessee stated that the return filed u/s. 139(1) may be treated as return filed in compliance to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The objections raised by assessee on validity of re-assessment proceedings were disposed of by the A.O. During the re-assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that at Sl. No. 43, page No. 8 of ITR-V -prof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter initiated penalty proceedings and imposed penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for filing inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved by penalty order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer observing as under : 4. Findings:- I have considered the submission of the assessee and the assessment order as well as the order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Ld AR very vehemently argued that no satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer while initiating the penalty proceedings and then he went to Court in various judgments on the issue. However, on perusal of the order u/s 147/143(3) for Assessment year 2007-08 dated 28/08/2014, it It is seen on the last pag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that an error occurred on his part while filing the income tax return, I have carefully considered of these issues. They make for a good presentation, however are not relevant in the present case. Since the Ld AR has failed to furnish the satisfactory explanation for furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income before Assessing Officer as well as before me, the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1 )(c) is confirmed. 4. Against the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 5. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee has correctly calculated its income and filed the return of income. It was submitted that due to introduction of new method of filing the return, i.e., electronically, the mistake as pointed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llies with the income declared by the assessee. Page No. 13 of the return of income Part-B-TI Computation of total income Sl. No. 2(i) Profit gains from business other than speculative business, is also showing the amount of ₹ 3,87,506 and Sl. No. 11-Total income (9-10) is also showing ₹ 3,87,506/-. Schedule BP: Computation of income from business or profession at the end of page No. 17 of return of income, income chargeable under the head profit and gains (A37+B41) is also showing ₹ 3,87,506/-. 8. The appellant has shown correct business income in their return of income. He has not filed any inaccurate particulars of income because in the computation part, the income has been shown correctly and no such ambigui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
