TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 1036
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of ₹ 3,73,000/- levied under section 271(1)(c)." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of investment and trading in shares. In the return of income filed for Assessment Year 2006-07 the assessee claimed deduction of ₹ 11,07,402/- on account of security transaction Tax. The Learned Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee under section 142(1) of the Act on 19-9-2008 and as per point No.11 of the said notice required the assessee to file copy of Demat account and evidences of security transaction tax paid and quantity of opening and closing stock of shares of bonds etc. The Assessee vide its reply dated 20-11-2008 submitted before the Learned Assessing Officer that his consultant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other charges' to the Profit and Loss Account, which included the Security transaction Act. Further as stated by the Learned Assessing Officer himself the appellant claimed credit for the security transaction tax under section 88E in the computation of income and return of income. Further the Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee of the appellant accepted the mistake to be attributable to him (in the course of assessment as well as appellate proceedings) and stated that it was on account of oversight due to heavy work load of tax audit in December, 2006. Appellant paid the taxes thereon, accepting the disallowance. Since the said amount of security transaction tax was debited under the head 'taxes and other charges' to the Profi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars of income. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee came to know of this mistake when notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to it by the Learned Assessing Officer on 9-9-2008 for furnishing the details for security transaction tax paid. The assessee immediately vide letter dt. 20-11-2008 accepted the mistake as bonafide mistake of the Chartered Accountant and agreed to pay tax on the said amount and requested the Learned Assessing Officer not to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Learned Assessing Officer observed that the facts were within the knowledge of the assessee who had not added back the amount of security transaction tax to the income of the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has opined that the omission to add back the amount was not willful but was bonafide mistake as the Chartered Accountant of the assessee was under pressure for filing the returns. We find that in the instant case it was not found by the Department that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all the material fact relating to the particulars of income. The only mistake was committed by the assessee while computing the total income and an amount which should have been disallowed due to provisions of section40(a)(ib) of the Act was not disallowed or added back by the assessee. Thus, in the instant case the dispute was only with regard to the computation of total income and no discrepancy was found in....