TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aims found some force. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd[ 2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] is as the bonafide mistake is always allowable mistake and the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. Thus, invoking penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not just and proper. Therefore, the assessee succeeds in his legal plea as well as on merit and penalty does not sustain. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - I.T.A. No. 5819/DEL/2014 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2021 - SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Sh. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 4,93,01,240/-. The Assessing Officer issued penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee came to the conclusion that the assessee has made wrong claim of expenses to the tune of ₹ 10,00,000/- and therefore concealed/furnished wrong particulars of income to the extent of ₹ 11,44,418/-. The Assessing Officer levied penalty of ₹ 4,00,000/- which is a little more than minimum penalty of ₹ 3,88,987/- leviable under the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that in response to the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the Assessing Officer while levying the penalty, relied upon the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. AtuI Mohan Bindal 317 ITR 1, the judgment of Dharmendra Textile 306 ITR 277 as also the judgment of Hon ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 7 of 2010 dated 17.05.2010. All such judgments are distinguishable on facts and are not relevant. The Ld. AR submitted that the main item of disallowance i.e. loss on account of forfeiture of advance for purchase of land could have been claimed as allowable as revenue expenditure, yet merely because the assessee has accepted this addition should not lead to an inference that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly its levy' is bad in law and levy of penalty in these circumstances cannot be sustained. Penalty levied based on pre-printed statutory notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 21(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the exact charge is held to be bad in law and penalty levied is not sustainable. The Ld. AR submits that the aforesaid judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court is the law of land and is being followed by various Courts across the country and some of the judgments on this proposition are as under. 1. CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory; 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) SLP against this judgment has been dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court in VeerbhadrappaSangappa (Supra). 2. DCIT v. Nepa Ltd. ITA No. 683/Indore/2013. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or an addition made towards provision for Income Tax. Hon ble High Court noted that although inaccurate particulars were furnished but it was an inadvertent bonafide mistake and it was not a repetitive claim made by the assessee and solitary claim was made only in this year. Therefore, the addition on account of Wealth Tax was at best a bonafide error. Moreover, against the declared income of about ₹ 4.93 Crores, the assessee cannot be expected to have made a wrong claim for a mere ₹ 1,44 lakhs. As regards the 3rd item, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer did not even initiate penalty and this claim was held legally maintainable and additions made were against the various decisions of jurisdictional High Court on thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
