2016 (12) TMI 355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in upholding levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act even when this was a case of bonafide mistake and not a case of conscious concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars ?" 3. The Appellant - Assessee is carrying on the business of property Development. On 30th October, 2004 the Appellant - Assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2004- 05. On 22nd December, 2006 the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the appellant to total income of Rs. 5.65 crores. Subsequently, on 25th March, 2009 the assessment for the subject assessment year was reopened on the ground that income chargeable to tax has escaped as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(1) (c) of the Act being 100% of the tax on income of Rs. 34 lakhs which was concealed. 5. Being aggrieved, the Appellant - Assessee carried the issue in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)]. By an order dated 3rd December, 2011 the CIT(A) dismissed the Appellant - Assessee's appeal holding that it had furnished inaccurate particulars of the income and consequently penalty was correctly imposed by the Assessing Officer. 6. On further appeal the Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the Assessee's Appeal holding that it had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income by not adding an amount of Rs. 34 lakhs as part of the value of its closing stock when the same had been debited as an payment. This led ....