TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (6) TMI 885
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his case is a Private Limited Company engaged in manufacturing cum trading. During the current assessment year it had declared a loss of Rs. 59,809/-. During the course of assessment proceedings Assessing Officer observed that assessee has claimed loss on account of sale of car to the tune of Rs. 15,194/- in the profit and loss account. However the same was not added back in the computation of income filed. When confronted the assessee could not give any reply in this regard. Accordingly, Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs. 15,194/- on this account. 3.1 Assessing Officer further observed that in the computation of income assessee has set off brought forward business loss against income from house property to the tune of Rs. 353691....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uding the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 2463 of 2010 and Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of C.I.T. vs. Auric Investment and Securities Ltd. 310 ITR 121. 6.1 Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand supported the orders of the authorities below. Apart from the decision in the case of Escorts Finance ltd. relied upon by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), she relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in ITA No. 106/Del/2009 dated 16.4.2010 in the case of Microsoft Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT and in another decision of the Tribunal in ITA NO. 12/del/2010 dated 14.5.2010 in the case of Survidhi Financial Services Ltd. ACIT. Ld. Departmental....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is also a mistake as disclosure of carry forward business loss and adjustment of the same from income from house property is clearly a mistake which is quite apparent. Hence in our considered opinion the assessee could not held to be guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment. 7.2 The case laws relied upon by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Escorts Finance referred to above was based upon the finding that assessee claim was ex-facie bogus. Here we find that assessee had committed a bonafide mistake and all the relevant particulars have been properly disclosed. The other case laws relied upon by the revenue are not applicable on the facts of this case. In those cases the claim of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act, or where the breach flows from a bonafide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute." 7.5 We would also like to refer to the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 2463 of 2010. In this case vide order dated 17.3.2010 it h....