Appeal Dismissed: Mistake Rectified, No Deliberate Misconduct

The appeal against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2004-2005 was dismissed. The assessing officer's penalty was set aside by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal, emphasizing the mistake as a human error promptly rectified by the assessee. The Tribunal found no deliberate attempt at furnishing inaccurate particulars, leading to the rejection of the appeal based on factual findings and the Tribunal's reasoned decision.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2004-2005.

Analysis:
The assessing officer imposed a penalty of Rs.1,45,00,000 under section 271(1)(c) on the ground of inaccurate particulars of income due to the assessee carrying forward business losses at a higher figure. The CIT(A) set aside the penalty order, citing it as a bonafide mistake promptly rectified by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty, emphasizing that it was a case of human error in preparing Schedule 6, rectified upon detection. The Tribunal noted that the figures were available with the Department, indicating no deliberate attempt at furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The appellant contended that the penalty reasons were not addressed by the authorities, alleging deliberate concealment. However, the respondent argued that both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal thoroughly examined the issue, concluding it was not a case of concealment or inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal's finding that the mistake was rectified during assessment proceedings and no deliberate attempt was made by the assessee was upheld.

The Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings, determining no fault with the order. The Tribunal's findings were upheld as findings of fact, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The appeal against the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was ultimately rejected based on the factual background and the Tribunal's reasoned decision.

---