TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealed the income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income then he should have deleted or not mentioned the other limb for imposition of penalty i.e. concealing the particulars of income. The above act of the AO clearly shows that the entire exercise of initiation of penalty proceedings has been done without application of mind. With regard to the merits of the penalty so levied, we find that it was an inadvertent human error while taking the costs of acquisition at the time of computation of capital gain. It was a bonafide and unintentional mistake which was rectified during the course of assessment itself - In case of Price Water House Coopers P. Ltd. [ 2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] held that the assessee should have been c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee : Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) Shri R.K. Bhatra (CA) For the Revenue : Smt. Runi Pal (DCIT) ORDER PER R.C. SHARMA, AM: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A)-2, Jaipur for the assessment year 2014-15, in the matter of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act. 2. Rival contentions have been heard and perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an Individual deriving income from salary, house property and other sources. The assessee for the year under consideration filed return of income u/s 139(1) declaring total income of ₹ 1,07,53,630/- which included Long Term Capital Gain of ₹ 94,72,909/- earned on sale of agricultural land which was jointly held in eq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee has relied on the decision of the division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgement of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arised in this appeal for determination by this court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The department has filed SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been dismissed. Therefore, Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the findings made by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ratio laid down in the case of Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) has been followed by various High Courts in the below mentioned cases :- i) Shri Samson Perinchery, ITA No. 1154, 953, 1097, 1226 of 2014 (Order dated 5.01.2017)(Bombay High Court). ii) SSA s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka High Court) iii) Mitsu Industries Ltd., ITA No. 216 of 2004, Gujarat High Court. iv) Narayana Heights Towers vs. ITO Ward-2-4, Jaipur ITA No. No. 1033/JP/2016. 3.2. With regard to the merits of the addition and the penalty imposed thereon, contention of the ld. A/R was that the inadvertent human error of taking wrong/in excess cost of acquisition while computing Long Term Capital Gain was bonafide and uninte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ltant. But the tax return preparer staff of tax consultant due to inadvertent mistake claimed the entire cost of acquisition of assessee s share of land measuring to 9 bigha 1 biswa i.e. ₹ 102303/- in computation of long term capital gain while the land sold was 2 bigha 6 biswa out of said land the proportionate cost of which worked to ₹ 26037/- only. The assessee also got information from his brother of said mistake but by that time notice u/s 148 was received by assessee. The assessee therefore, while filing return in compliance to notice u/s 148 corrected the mistake in computation of capital gain and filed return of income declaring total income of ₹ 1,11,69,992/- which included Long Term Capital Gain of ₹ 98,89, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ital gain. It was a bonafide and unintentional mistake which was rectified during the course of assessment itself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Price Water House Coopers P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 held that the assessee should have been careful but in absence of due care in a case did not mean that assessee was guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal the income. Thus no penalty can be levied for a bona fide/inadvertent/human error . 5.3. Further Hon'ble M.P. High Court in case of CIT vs. SKY Auto Products Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 271 ITR 335 held that where the assessee, a new businessman claimed depreciation for the full year in the first year of starting production though he was ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
