2023 (2) TMI 807

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... taken the following grounds of appeal:- "1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that reduction in the capital loss cannot be considered for imposition of penalty and directing the AO to ignore the reduction in capital loss while imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessee did not furnish inaccurate particulars if income in terms of provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. Relief claimed in appeal It is prayed that the order of the CIT (Appeals) be set asi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... consideration by the assessee at Rs. 9,95,43,700/-. However, subsequently, the assessee realized that her share of sale consideration was only 5% but by mistake and in absence of purchase and sale documents at the time of filing of return of income, the entire sale consideration of Rs. 9,95,43,700/- was taken into consideration by the assessee as her own income from sale of aforesaid properties (though her share was only 5%) while computing long term capital gains and 95% was treated as cost of acquisition, resulting into losses. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) held that since both the figures of sale consideration and cost of acquisition were taken incorrectly, the mistake prima facie appears to be inadvertent. Moreover, this error occurred o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Limited v/s CIT(2007) 288 ITR 196 (Guj) relied upon by the Ld. AR, has held that penalty could not be imposed in respect of the mistake committed by the CA due to oversight. Further, the Ld AR relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), wherein it has been held that no penalty is imposable in respect of the inadvertent and silly mistake. The case of appellant also falls in this category because the entire sale consideration was considered when the share of the appellant was only 5%. 4.2.1 In view of the above factual and legal position, thus I hold that reduction in the capital loss cannot be considered for imposition of penalty. Even otherwise th....