TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed person, the argument of ld. AR that assessee is not well versed in taxation laws, cannot be brushed aside. Considering the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd.,[ 2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT] so cited by the ld. AR as above, and judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of J.P. Sharma Sons [ 1984 (1) TMI 25 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] we are of the opinion that it is a case where benefit of doubt is to be given to the assessee that it was an inadvertent and bonafide error on the part of assessee without knowing the nittygritty of the taxation laws and it was not a case of assessee trying to conceal its income. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, eventuality penalty was imposed for underreporting of income by suppressing. Appellant prays the provision of under reporting as embedded in Section 270A are not applicable in the year under consideration. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty by ignoring the settled judicial position that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct proceedings and conclusion drawn in assessment proceedings, though relevant could not be solely8 relied upon for imposing penalty. 3.1 That the ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the penalty by not considering the fact that necessary documents were given to erstwhile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax Act arbitrarily. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty by ignoring the settled position that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct proceedings and conclusion drawn in assessment proceedings, though relevant could not be solely relied upon for imposing penalty. 3. That ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the penalty by not considering the fact that necessary documents were given to erstwhile counsel for furnishing return of income who filed the return with incorrect figures. Appellant prays that it is only on receipt of notice u/s 148, another counsel was approached who informed that earlier return was not correct and filed retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who informed the assessee that there were certain mistakes in the return filed u/s 139. Accordingly, while furnishing return of income in response to notice u/s 148, total income was correctly computed at Rs. 5,48,180/- and same was accepted by the AO in the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, without making any addition. However, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated. It was submitted by the ld. AR before us that during the course of penalty proceedings, it was requested before the AO that mistake in the original return of income was un-intentional and same stood rectified at the very first opportunity when the same was brought to the notice of the assessee by way of notice u/s 148. Therefore, penalty may not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but absence of due care, in a case such as the present, does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or attempting to conceal its income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court finally held that given the peculiar facts of this case, the imposition of penalty on the assessee is not justified. 2.2 It was submitted by the ld. AR before us that the instant case of the appellant is far better than that of the aforesaid cited case, in as much as that the appellant is not having any great expertise in the taxation field vis- -vis M/s Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. The ld. AR has cited various other case laws also before us through his written submision. For AY 2016-17, Ld. AR has also taken altern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by ld. AR), we are of the opinion that it is a case where benefit of doubt is to be given to the assessee that it was an inadvertent and bonafide error on the part of assessee without knowing the nittygritty of the taxation laws and it was not a case of assessee trying to conceal its income. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the case laws so cited penalty order passed by AO is cancelled and appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2016-17. It is reiterated that facts and the grounds so taken in AY 2017-18 are also same as that of in AY 2016 17 and accordingly the appeal for AY 2017-18 is also allowed. 3.0 In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
