9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ising before us the following grounds of appeal: "1. We are not agreeing with the Order U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai. 2. During the assessment proceeding same mistake was notice by the assessee company and immediately it was brought to the notice of assessing officer, even before asking by the assessing officer. Which shows that this is not concealment but a bonafide mistake which was not only suo moto offered by the assessee company but also the assessee company has paid the due taxes. 3. The previous record of assessee company also shows that assessee company has always been a co-operative & honest tax payer. 4. While leaving the penalty assessing officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt 'LTCG'). In reply, the assessee filed the working of the LTCG on sale of the three premises viz. Shop No. 10, Shop No.11, and Shop No.12, as under: Details of the shop Sale price (Amount in Rs.) Cost of Indexation (Amount in Rs.) Difference treated as Long Term Capital Gain (Amount in Rs.) Shop No. 10 1650000 1069824 580176 Shop No. 11 2750000 1838325 911675 Shop No. 12 2300000 1846675 453325 Total 6700000 4754824 1945176 Accordingly, the assessee offered the LTCG of Rs. 19,45,176/- for tax. Apart there from, the A.O also made a disallowance of Rs. 93,453/- towards excess claim of municipal taxes by the assessee. The A.O while culminating the assessment initiated penalty proceedings under Sec. 271 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er intended to withhold sale of the property under consideration could safely be gathered from as perusal of the chart of the tangible fixed assets that formed part of its balance sheet for the year under consideration, wherein the a deduction of Rs. 67,00,000/- was disclosed by the assessee. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R, that the assessee on learning of his aforesaid mistake had immediately worked out the LTCG on the sale of the aforementioned properties and, had offered the same for tax in the course of the assessment proceedings. In sum and substance, it was the claim of the ld. A.R that the mistake on the part of the assessee in not offering the LTCG on the sale of the aforesaid shops was totally backed by a bonafide mistake. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 8,041,746.00 0.00 Deductions 0.00 0.00 6,700,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 As on 31.03.2013 4,230,460.00 115,625.00 40,071,545.00 128,870.00 542,132.00 5,190,171.00 8,041,746.00 76,000.00 A careful perusal of the aforesaid 'chart' filed by the assessee, reveals beyond any doubt, that the deduction pertaining to 'building premises' of Rs. 67,00,000/- was duly disclosed by the assessee in the aforesaid 'block of assets'. Apart there from, we find that the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings on learning about its aforesaid inadvertent omission in not offering the LTCG on the sale of the aforesaid shops had worked out its income under the said head and offered the same for tax. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee could only be described as a human error which all are prone to make. Further, it was observed that though the assessee should have been careful, but the absence of due care would not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or had attempted to conceal its income. We find that the facts of the case before us clearly falls within the four corners of the aforesaid view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court. As is discernible from the records, the fact that there was a sale/transfer of the properties could safely be gathered from the chart of the 'block of assets' of the tangible fixed assets that formed part of the 'balance sheet' of the assessee for the year under consideration. In our considered vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
