9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and in law, the Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 18,03,832/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in law, the Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 18,03,832/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act not appreciating that the appellant in the working of capital gains arising on sale of Gobi unit at Erode considered the book value of assets sold for working out the net worth in place of written down of assets as provided by section 50B of the I.T. Act due to a bonafide error and therefore levy of penalty was not justified." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 28.09.2012 declaring total income to the tune of Rs. 5,67,82,628/-. The assessee show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee has wrongly considered the book value of his sold unit for working of net worth of the unit in the place of written down value as required for the purpose section 50B of the Act, therefore, it is not a case to levy the penalty. It is also contended that after the realizing of the error, the assessee filed the revised computation of income and corrected the difference of capital gain of Rs. 87,68,560/- and offered to tax before completion of the assessment. It is also argued that after the acceptance of revised computation of income, it is not a case of concealment of particulars of income nor f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the LTCG. Moreover, the assessee has filed the revised return of income which has been accepted by the Department. In view of the revised return of income, we nowhere find any concealment of income or furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. Taking into account, all the facts and circumstances and in view of the law settled in Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), CIT Vs. Nalin P. Shah (HUF) (2013) 40 taxmann.com 86 (Bom), CIT Vs. Somany Evergreen Knits in ITA No. 1332 of 2011 & CIT Vs. Bennett Coleman & CO.Ltd. (2013) 259 CTR 383 (Bom). We are of the view that the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable, therefore, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) and delete the penalty. 5. In the result, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
