TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal noted that an error had occurred due to the wrong posting of the entry by the book-keeping staff of the Respondent with respect to the relevant dividend entry income to a wrong date. The Tribunal observed that since the Respondent had voluminous transactions, it committed an error while posting the relevant dividend entry, which was covered by one voucher since it was received on the same security. Tribunal has observed that it was a reasonable human error which could have been committed on the part of the Respondent. The Tribunal noted that on the same security, dividends were received at two distinct dates, however, the error crept in since, the book-keeping staff posted both the entries of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) against the final judgment and order dated 19th August, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short the Tribunal ) in ITA No. 1469/Del/2019. BRIEF FACTS: 2. M/s Harish Kumar HUF i.e. the Respondent/Assessee (hereinafter referred to as Respondent ) filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 under Section 139(1) of the Act. In the said return, the Respondent disclosed that it had suffered a loss from the business of trading in derivatives. The Respondent had adjusted the Short Term Capital Loss (hereinafter referred to as STCL ) of Rs.31,15,27,183/- with Long Term Capital Gain (hereinafter referred to as LTCG ) to Rs.32,58,81,104/- from the sale of equi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15th December, 2017 and furnished the details of the dividend in the required format. The Respondent also filed a representation along with the said details and in the said representation, the Respondent, at the outset, acknowledged that it had now come to its attention that a sum of Rs.1,98,51,874/- of dividend income was not considered by the Respondent. The Respondent admitted that the provisions of Section 94(7) of the Act were duly attracted. Therefore, the Respondent stated that it has revised the computation of income and had increased its LTCG from 1,43,53,921/- to 3,42,05,795/-. The Respondent admitted to the disallowance of Rs.1,98,51,874/- under Section 94(7) of the Act. 6. The Respondent submitted that in its return that it h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the Respondent s case was covered by Explanation 1(B) to Section 271(1) of the Act. The AO held that he did not accept that the explanation offered by the Respondent was bonafide or that all facts relating to material for computation were duly disclosed by it. The AO thus, imposed a minimum penalty of Rs.45,52,613/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, being 100% of the tax, sought to be evaded. 10. The Respondent filed an appeal under Section 250 of the Act to the Commissioner of Income Tax, which was dismissed vide order dated 26 th November, 2018. The Respondent filed a further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and perusing all the records of the Revenue authorities and the Respondent and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same security punched at one voucher i.e. entry of the dividend received on same security (Rs.1,98,51,874/- received on 28.1.2015 and Rs.3,38,62,217/- received on 25.3.2015 made cumulatively on 26.3.2015 i.e. date of sale of investments (26.3.2015) and receipt date of second dividend. We further note that AO has completed the assessment on the basis of details furnished by the Respondent, hence, under the circumstances Respondent has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income... 11. It, however, appears that during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the Appellant-Revenue (hereinafter referred to as Appellant ) initiated prosecution proceedings against the Respondent and the same are pending. 12. The Appellant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the prosecution initiated against the Respondent, the present case falls in the exception category under paragraph 3.f of the CBDT Circular. 13. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the order of the Tribunal. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Tribunal that the Respondent herein had voluntarily filed the revised return on 15th December, 2017 duly disclosing the disallowance of the dividend in terms of Section 94(7) of the Act and revised its returned income to Rs. 2,33,81,340/-. It is also admitted that the Respondent has upon receipt of the assessment order issued by the AO deposited the enhanced amount of tax and the Respondent had not challenged the assessment orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
