TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the penalty levied by the AO for Rs. 2,55,048/- on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and earning income under the head salary and other sources. The assessee in the year under consideration has declared loss of Rs. 28,09,416/- on account of sale of unit of mutual funds under the head short-term capital gain which was carried forward to the subsequent assessment years. The impugned loss was inclusive of the loss of Rs. 8,25,387/- which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, there cannot be any penalty in the instant case. 7. On the other hand, the learned DR contended that the assessee admitted to have claimed the loss of Rs. 8,25,387/- which was to be ignored by the assessee while calculating the taxable income under the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. As such, the assessee agreed for the amount of impugned loss on being confronted by the AO during the assessment proceedings. Thus the learned DR contended that there was no bona fides of the assessee available on record in the given facts and circumstances. The learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In the present ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er concealment or furnishing inaccurate particular of the income and thereby levying the penalty. The phrase furnishing in accurate particular of incomer has not been defined under the provision of the Act. However, we note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff vs. JCIT reported in 161 taxman 218 has discussed the term inaccurate by observing that the word inaccurate signifies a deliberate act or omission on the part of the assessee. Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, it has to be tested whether it has been done so with the dishonest intent which cannot be regarded as an innocent act. In other words the element of consciousness in furnishing inaccurate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was no allegation that the assessee has claimed bogus loss by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, to our considered view, the claim of the assessee at the most can be regarded as inaccurate claim which cannot be equated with the inaccurate particulars of income. It is for the reason that nothing has been brought on record by the authorities below suggesting that the assessee has furnished the particulars of income with dishonest intent. 8.4 In holding so, we draw support and guidance from the order Delhi ITAT in the case of Harish Kumar (HUF) Vs. DCIT reported in 109 taxmann.com 4 wherein it was held as under: 7. We have heard both the counsel and perused the relevant records especially the orders passed by the Revenue aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assesee. We note that Assessee has committed this mistake for furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the return due to the inadvertent bona fide error in the claim due to one entry by the accounts staff posted at wrong date due to huge voluminous transactions and dividend coupons for dividend from same security punched at one voucher i.e. entry of two dividend received on same security (Rs. 1,98,51,874/- received on 28.1.2015 and Rs. 3,38,62,717/- received on 25.3.2015 made cumulatively on 26.3.2015 i.e. date of sale of investments (26.3.2015) and receipt date of second dividend. We further note that AO has completed the assessment on the basis of details furnished by the assessee, hence, under the circumstances assessee has not furni....