TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of addition of Rs. 7,86,721 made under section 68 in the reassessment order dated 07.02.2014 passed under section 147 of the Act. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not leviable qua the impugned addition made in the reassessment order inasmuch as (i) the reassessment order was illegal and beyond jurisdiction; (ii) addition made in the quantum proceedings was on account of inadvertent error in the return of income; (iii) all the facts material to the aforesaid claim were duly disclosed by the appellant during the course of assessment as well as reassessment proceedings. 1.2 That the CIT(A) e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e IT return, Part-B-TI-Computation of total income-Sl. No. 13, the aggregate income (11+12) is shown at Rs. 3,87,506/- as income from profit and gains from business or profession. Same amount has been shown at page No. 16 - Schedule BP-computation of income from business or profession. At page No. 21, Schedule CYLA - Details of income after set off of current years losses- at Sl. No. ii-Business (including speculation profit), Rs. 11,74,227/- is shown in column No. (1) as Income of current year. Similarly, at page 22, Schedule BFLA - Details of income after set off of brought forward losses of earlier years, in Sl. No. ii - Business (including speculation profit), Rs. 11,74,227/- is shown in column No. (1), whereas the acknowledgement has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 271(1)(c) of the Act 1961 separately" . From the observation above it can be gathered that the Assessing Officer was very clear in his mind while initiating the penalty proceedings. He has given a categorically finding that he was initiating penalty proceeding as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. The main thrust of argument of the assessee before Assessing Officer was that due to some inadvertent software error an income of Rs. 7,86,721/- had remained untaxed. Now the task of the assessee was to establish that it was in an inadvertent error and not intentional effort to reduce its tax liability. The assessee has failed to establish that before me during appellate proceeding also, the Ld AR has filed a ple....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng correct income as shown by the assessee. Schedule CYLA and BFLA are regarding set off of losses. It is not the income part. The assessee had no intention to file inaccurate particulars of income, but due to software error, a sum of Rs. 11,74,227/- was wrongly taken in the above schedules by the software. The business of the assessee was closed and therefore, in order to purchase peace of mind, the amount was surrendered by the assessee. Such an admission should not be used for imposition of penalty. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The ld. AR submitted copy of ITR-V, which is a prescribed return form for the pa....