Revenue appeal dismissed, penalty deleted under sec 271(1)(c). Errors not deliberate tax evasion.

The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted. The court upheld the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court. It was found that the inaccuracies in the computation of total income were inadvertent and promptly rectified by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The court ruled that the errors did not constitute deliberate attempts to evade tax, leading to the cancellation of the penalty.

---

---

Issues:
- Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income regarding disallowance of donation paid and security transaction tax (STT) in the computation of total income for AY 2012-13.

Analysis:
1. The revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) regarding the deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for inaccuracies in the computation of total income. The AO had initiated penalty proceedings due to the disallowance of donation paid and STT in the return filed by the assessee. The AO held that the additions made in the quantum assessment were final and not due to inadvertent errors. The penalty was imposed at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded.

2. The assessee contended that the inaccuracies were rectified by filing a revised statement of total income immediately after noticing the errors. The primary facts were disclosed in the financial statements, but due to inadvertent human error, the amounts were not added back in the total income statement. The CIT(A) relied on a Supreme Court decision to rule that such errors did not warrant penalty under section 271(1)(c) as they were not deliberate attempts to evade tax.

3. The Ld.CIT(A) emphasized that the assessee's case was similar to the precedent where the Supreme Court held that inadvertent errors in adding certain expenses to total income did not constitute deliberate concealment or inaccuracies. The penalty was cancelled based on this reasoning, as the primary facts were disclosed, and the errors were rectified promptly during the assessment proceedings.

4. The revenue argued that the penalty should not have been deleted as the assessee willfully avoided disallowance of the expenses in the total income computation. However, the assessee maintained that the errors were unintentional and rectified promptly, following the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in similar cases.

5. After hearing both parties, it was concluded that the assessee had disclosed all primary facts, rectified the errors promptly, and the inaccuracies were due to inadvertent human errors. The decision of the Ld.CIT(A) to delete the penalty was upheld based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court and the specific circumstances of the case.

6. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted based on the findings that the errors in the computation of total income were inadvertent and promptly rectified during the assessment proceedings.

---