TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty levied by the A.O u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act at ₹ 4,04,232/-. 2. Parties have been heard and arguments advanced by them have been considered in view of the orders of the authorities below and the decisions relied upon. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the A.O levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c ) of the Act at ₹ 4,04,232/- on the addition of ₹ 13,47,443/- made on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Ld CIT(A) in para No. 4 of the first appellate order. He submitted further that at page No. 55 to 57 of the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee, the assessee has made available the affidavit of his tax auditor acknowledging his mistake in preparing the final accounts and statement of computation of return of the assessee for the A.Y. 2004-05 in not considering the amount of unpaid int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6, A.Y. 1999-00 to 2003-04, order dt. 31st July 2008 (ITAT, Pune) 5. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand tried to justify the orders of the authorities below on the basis that the mistake explained by the assessee cannot be accepted as bonafide since for the Revenue, assessee and his counsel are one. Ignorance of law cannot be taken as a bonafide mistake to delete the penalty for concealing the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad.), wherein it has been observed that a disallowance made u/s. 43B of the Act does not amount to concealment within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Likewise in the case of ACIT v/s. Smt. Ujjwala Sanjay Pawar (Supra), the Pune Bench of the Tribunal following the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Chandrapal Bagga vs. ITAT and another (2003), 182 CTR 185 (Raj. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsultant engaged for the purpose was bonafide in nature for which assessee cannot be penalized. We thus while setting aside the orders of the authorities below direct the A.O to delete the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c ) at ₹ 4,04,232/-. The Ground is accordingly allowed. 7. Consequently, appeal is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on31st January,2011 - - TaxTMI - TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
