9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Mumbai, dated 11/08/2010 pertaining to A.Y.2002-03. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty of ₹ 2,48,705/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. In this case, the return of income was filed on 30/10/2002 declaring total loss at ₹ 47,404/-. The return was processed u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was set off to that extent against brought forward long-term capital loss and the total income was returned at a loss of ₹ 47,404/- assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was also completed at this figure. 4. However, the AO initiated penalty proceedings for filing inaccurate particulars of income. During the panel proceedings, Assessee once again submitted that it has sold 6,16,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the matter before the CIT(A) but without any success. 6. Before us, the counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been submitted before the lower authorities. Per Contra, the ld. DR strongly relied upon the findings of the CIT(A). 7. We have carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material evidence brought on record. It is an undisputed fact that the revised computatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et off there were substantial loss which were carried forward. These facts on record show that the mistake of the assessee was a bona fide mistake and there is no loss to the revenue whatsoever. Considering all these facts in totality, in our view no penalty is leviable. We accordingly direct the AO to delete the penalty of ₹ 2,48,705/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The DR relied upon th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
