TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (Appeal) erred in confirming the penalty order in respect of penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act in respect of additions of Rs. 66,94,673 and Rs. 2,99,122 made to the returned income of the assessee. 2. That in respect of the addition of Rs. 66,94,673, the learned CIT (Appeal) erred in not holding that a mere failure on part of the firm engaged by the assessee to correctly furnish her return of income tax could not be enough to warrant penalty on her as there was nothing to show that her statement in this regard was not a correct or a bona-fide one. 3. That the learned CIT (Appeal) er....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 31/03/2013, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income. The Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice on 22/02/2013 and in response to which, the assessee filed reply on 07/05/2013. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer again issued notice, however, the same was not replied by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has noted in the impugned penalty order that the assessee did not appeal against the assessment order and thus the assessee has accepted filing of inaccurate particulars of income and he levied penalty amounting to Rs. 26,01,400/- i.e. 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on the income of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... profit and loss account. Before the Ld. CIT(A), it was contended on behalf of the assessee that she had engaged services of a firm of chartered accountants for preparing and filing her return through e-filing services. It was further submitted that this mistake was admitted by the assessee and no appeal was filed against the addition made in the assessment order. It was further contended that the mistake was committed at the office of the Chartered Accountants, who were engaged for filing tax return and on being pointed out by the Assessing Officer, the Chartered Accountants accepted this mistake. This was accepted as a bonafide mistake by the accountant and it was submitted that there was no intention on the part of the assessee to file i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enalty under section 271(1)(c) of the act. The Ld. CIT(A) also referred to the other decisions mentioned in the impugned order including the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus Escort Finance Ltd (183 Taxman 453) (del) 292 ITR 658, wherein it is observed that if claim made in return appears to be ex facie bogus, it would be treated as case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income particularly when the department is accepting the return of income in 95% of the cases without subjecting them to scrutiny/verification. 4.2 Before us, the Ld. counsel reiterated the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A), whereas the Ld. DR relied on the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). 4.3 In the instant case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e on the part of the accountant who prepared the computation of the income. But the material facts about the long-term capital loss was fully disclosed in the profit and loss account. On being pointed out this mistake, the assessee has admitted and even did not file any further appeal on the addition. This shows bonafide on the part of the assessee and we do not find any deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee for not offering the income in the return of income, particularly when said item has already been disclosed in the profit and loss account. In view of above facts and circumstances and the Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, we do not find any merit in sustaining the penalty by the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, we d....