2019 (3) TMI 1033

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as 'AY'] 2010-11 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai, [in short referred to as 'CIT(A)'], Appeal No. CIT(A)-20/IT-85/2013-14 dated 16/08/2013 qua confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs. 5.30 Lacs. None has appeared for assessee. The hearing noti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... per The Companies Act was considered as the cost. Further, each premises were considered as separate block of assets, while working out the gains. However, the WDV, in terms of Section 50, as per Income Tax Act was to be considered as cost and further the computations were to be made considering the various office premises as single block of asset. The aforesaid differences led to enhanceme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to take WDV as per Income Tax Act as against The Companies Act as taken by the assessee and secondly, all the premises were to be considered as single block of assets. Nevertheless, the same could not be termed as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income which justifies imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In our opinion, the computational error, at best, be termed as bona fide error on the ....