TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1092
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ward-8(4), Ahmedabad. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs. 15,24,180/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad may be set aside and that of the order of the Assessing Officer be restored. 2. Briefly stated facts, as culled out from the records, are that the assessee is a Private Limited Investment Company and the return of incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the appellate proceedings, it is submitted by the appellant that gain arising on sale of shares was inadvertently left to be shown in the return of income. Appellant had made an investment of 287119 shares of REI Agro Limited for consideration of Rs. 31,71,17,872/- and payment of Rs. 22 crores was also made. The appellant could not make remaining payment and broker sold the share lying in demat account and adjusted the sale consideration against the outstanding. The appellant, thereafter, credited the investment account and debited the brokers account and finalized the entry and books of accounts. The books of account were subsequently audited and the auditor's also could not detect the capital gain. However, during the course of sc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... realize his dues, the broker sold the shares lying in the demat account of the appellant in open market for a consideration of Rs. 9.80 crores and adjusted the outstanding. The ld. Authorized Representative further submitted that on the basis of information received from broker about the sale and adjustment in outstanding account, the appellant credited the investment account and debited broker's account for Rs. 9.80 crores which has been confirmed by the broker. In the process, gain arising on sale of shares was camouflaged in the investment account of shares and inadvertently & unintentionally this gain was not offered for taxation since it did not come to the notice of the appellant at the time of filing the return of income. The ld. Au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and on submission these details only the Assessing Officer has pointed out profit on sale of shares, when it was surfaced, immediately it was accepted and tax was paid on same without any argument or hesitation. The ld. Authorized Representative also submitted that a duly sworn affidavit of Managing Director declaring facts on oath was also submitted before the Ld. CIT (A). Ld. Authorized Representative referred and relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd vs. CIT, Kolkata-1, reported in [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC) and T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT, reported in 292 ITR 11 (SC). The ld. Authorized Representative also submitted that in view of the above facts and legal decisions, the penalty levied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l that has happened in the present case is that through bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return, failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. This can only be described as a human error which we are all prone to make. The caliber and expertise of the assessee has little or nothing to do with the inadvertent error. That the assessee should have been careful cannot be doubted, but the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income." Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai (supra) has held that "the term 'inaccurate particulars' is not defined. F....