2019 (4) TMI 665

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Act. 3. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused and judicial decision relied upon by both the sides were duly considered. 4. The facts on record show that the appellant is a proprietor of an under taking which is eligible for deduction u/s 80 IC of the Act. 5. The claim of deduction has been allowed in earlier assessment years also. As per the audit report exhibited at pages 100-103 of the paper book, the auditors have shown initial assessment years from when deduction is being claimed as A. Y.2009-10 and date of commencement of operation / activity by the under taking / enterprises has been shown as 26.08.2008. The profits and gains derived by the under taking / enterprise....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, the Assessing Officer observed that it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee conceal income to the extent of Rs. 12755247/- accordingly penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c ) of the Act were separately initiated. 11. After issuing a show cause notice and after considering the submissions of the assessee the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is taking shelter behind bona fides and inadvertent error whereas the intention was to conceal the taxable income and proceeded by levying penalty of Rs. 43,58,400/-. 12. The assessee accordingly agitated the levy of penalty before the CIT(A) but without any success. 13. Before us the counsel reiterated that due to the bona fides mistake of the Chartered Accountant an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... colour of intentional or willful claim. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water Coopers reported in 348 ITR 306 has held that imposing of penalty would be unwarranted in a case where the assessee had considered an inadvertent and bonafide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its claim or furnish inaccurate particulars. 17. The reliance placed by DR in the case of Dharmendra Textile (supra) is misplaced since in that case the Hon'ble Supreme court has held that penalty u/s 271 (1 ) (c ) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient. The decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Zoom Communication (supra) is also misplaced since in that case the ....