AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1126
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amounting to Rs. 54,73,884 on account of foreign exchange fluctuation loss of Rs. 1,68,68,672. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the learned AO and not appreciating the fact that the Appellant had neither concealed particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not quashing the penalty as the notice under section 274 of the Act did not specifically mention, whether penalty is initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income. 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted as prescribed u/s. 44AB of the Act and the assessee has already submitted all the details. That the assessee had suo-motto submitted during the assessment proceedings foreign currency loss on account of capital assets of Rs. 1,68,68,672/- shall be disallowed for computation of tax as it does not pertain to revenue transaction. Further the assessee claimed that the same happened inadvertently and the same was also not reported by the tax auditor in Form 3CD. That at the time of filing of return the assessee has relied on the tax audit report of the Chartered Accountant. The assessee also stated that the Assessing Officer nowhere in the assessment order mentioned that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or conceale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer further referred to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors (166 Taxmann 65) and decision in the case of K.P. Madhusudanan Vs. CIT (251 ITR 99). The Assessing Officer further distinguished the decision relied upon by the assessee and finally concluded that he was satisfied that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed its income in various issues discussed above. 6. Against the above order, the assessee has filed the appeal before learned CIT(A). However learned CIT(A) upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer. 7. Against the above order the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. At the outset, learned Counsel of the assessee cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e where prima facie satisfaction not recorded by the Assessing Officer at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings : * MWP Ltd (264 CTR 502) (Kar HC) * AMI Builders Pvt Ltd vs ACIT (46 CCH 334) (Mum ITAT) * ABR Auto Pvt Ltd vs ACIT (51 CCH 477) (Delhi ITAT) * Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya 175 TTJ 238 (Kol ITAT) * Shri Meghraj Kesaji Chaudhari vs ACIT (ITA No. 1296/Pun/2015) * DCIT vs Purti Sakhar Karkhana Ltd (153 TTJ 12) (Nagpur ITAT Penalty cannot be levied on bonfide and inadvertent error of the assessee :- * Reliance Petrochemical Pvt Ltd (322 ITR 158) (Supreme Court) * Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. 348 ITR 306 (Supreme Court) Penalty cannot be levied when assessee voluntarily discloses wrong claim during assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pinion the assessee doesn't deserve to succeed on this ground. The assessing officer has after disallowance of the impugned amount duly noted in the assessment order that "penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated". Consequent to amendment in section 271 by insertion of section 271(1B) duly applicable in the extant assessment year, this is sufficient satisfaction and the penalty cannot be annulled on the ground of lack of satisfaction by the assessing officer. We may gainfully refer to the relevant provisions of section 271(1B) as under :- 271(1B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a directi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same to tax. The AO accepted the position of MBIPL for AY 2012-13 ie treating the same as revenue in nature, accordingly, it is submitted that principle of consistency should be applicable in the instant case". 17. Hence the assessee was very well aware that it was deliberately showing capital account transaction loss as loss on revenue account. Hence by no stretch of imagination it can be said that there was any inadvertent error. It was fully considered decision of the assessee to show the capital loss as revenue loss. Hence this limb of the argument is dismissed 18. Another ground raised is that penalty cannot be levied as assessee voluntarily disclosed during the course of assessment proceedings. 19. Up on careful consideration we a....