TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t when in respect of sale of property, matter was referred to DVO to determine sale consideration at a higher amount, that by itself would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) As in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs CIT [ 2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] had expounded that an inadvertent error cannot lead to rigours of penalty. Furthermore, a larger bench of the Honourable Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa [ 1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT] had expounded that when the conduct of the assessee is not contumacious, the authority may not levy the penalty. That technical and venial breach may not lead to levy of penalty. Conduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mistake was on the part of assessee's Accountant was not accepted by the authorities below. It was further held that a belated return cannot be revised. Hence, it was held that assessee cannot be exonerated of its liability by claiming that it had filed an invalid revised return. 3. Against the levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer and its subsequent confirmation by the learned CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before us. 4. We have heard both the Counsel and perused the records. The learned counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has suo moto filed a revised return without any query or action by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that there was no contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee and that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal High Court in the case of CIT vs Fortune Hotels and Estates (P.) Ltd., [2014] 52 taxmann.com 330 (Bombay) had expounded that when in respect of sale of property, matter was referred to DVO to determine sale consideration at a higher amount, that by itself would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Furthermore, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC) had expounded that an inadvertent error cannot lead to rigours of penalty. Furthermore, a larger bench of the Honourable Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26 (SC) had expounded that when the conduct of the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
