TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law in 1. Confirming the penalty of Rs. 70,550/- which was levied by the ACIT, Cir-1, Bhavnagar under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Considering the facts of the case and the provisions of law, as interpreted by various courts and Tribunals, he ought to have deleted the same. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter one or more grounds of appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the assessment records are that the assessee is an individual carrying on the business of trading in old and used ship machineries etc. and has filed his return of income on 19.08.2008 declaring total income of Rs. 10,49,970/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case. By not adding back the inadmissible debit to the profit and loss account while computing the income, appellant furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Immediately on AO's pointing out, appellant accepted that the amount was inadmissible and agreed for its disallowance. There are no two opinions regarding the inadmissibility of the said sum. Appellant's omission or commission cannot be simply explained away by saying that it was an inadvertent mistake. If this plea were to be accepted, every tax payer can take chances in furnishing inaccurate particulars and on being caught can claim it to be due to inadvertence. Appellant is deriving sizeable income (income admitted for the year under consideration being Rs. 10,49,970/-). Her ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and when all the relevant documents were with the department, then there cannot be any case of concealment. In support of her submission, ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 25 taxmann.com 400 (SC). 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The only issue in this appeal is that assessee has shown loss on sale of fixed asset in its books of accounts at Rs. 2,07,551/- and the same was shown in the audited profit and loss account. However, during preparing computation of income loss on sale of fixed assed being disallowable expenditure was not added back to the profit as per profit and loss account resulting in showing total i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailable with it. Notwithstanding this, it is possible that even the assessee could make a "silly" mistake and, indeed this has been acknowledged both by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court 18. The fact that the Tax Audit Report was filed along with the return and that it unequivocally stated that the provision for payment was not allowable under section 40A(7) of the Act indicates that the assessee made a computation error in its return of income. Apart from the fact that the assessee did not notice the error, it was not even noticed even by the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment order. In that sense, even the Assessing Officer seems to have made a mistake in overlooking the contents of the Tax Audit Report. 19. The contents ....