TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of the assessee. 1.1. That the ld. CIT (A) further erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee company, itself has worked out the amounting capital gains included in dividend income and deposited the taxes thereon being mistake inadvertently taken place, thus the penalty so uphold deserves to be deleted. 1.2. That the ld. CIT (A) has further erred in not accepting the explanation of the assessee who acted in bona fide manner and by sufficient reason explain the circumstances leading to mistake, thus the resultant confirmation of penalty u/ 271(1)(c) at Rs. 24,87,400/- deserves to be deleted. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e proceeds of the units of the mutual funds and the amount invested was wrongly considered as dividend income in place of Short Term Capital Gain. Realizing this mistake, the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings filed revised details of investment and transactions made in the Mutual Fund during the year and correct working of income from short term capital gain and dividends which inadvertently was claimed as exempt income in the return filed and accordingly the same was suomoto offered for taxation by the assessee through revised computation and due tax was deposited on account of short term capital gain. He submitted that it is noteworthy that the AO had not made any enquiry or investigation. He submitted that the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded that the conduct of the assessee was bona fide. 3.2. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is not disputed that the assessee itself has offered for taxation the income which was claimed to be exempt in the return of income. It is submitted that it was because of the error which resulted in claiming the exempt income. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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 part....