TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....71(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee before us in the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 36 read as under: 1. Under the facts & circumstances of the case, the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) is illegal & bad in law in as much as the penalty proceedings was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income but levied for concealment of income. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 38,250/- u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961 on the addition of Rs. 1,23,780/- made u/s 143(3) of the Act which was inadvertently left to be considered in the return filed u/s 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and verification of the facts with reference to details filed by the assessee's AR, income assessed u/s 143(3) is acceptable. 5. The penalty proceedings were initiated in paragraph 5 of the said assessment order, wherein the AO recorded as under: 5. On perusal of the details available on record, it seen that the income assessed u/s 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 at Rs. 13,68,890/- which has been accepted by the assessee as no appeal filed by her. However, the assessee has shown income at Rs. 12,45,110/- in the return filed u/s 153A. Besides the above facts, the assessee did not disclose the above income of Rs. 1,23,780/- (Assessed income of Rs. 1368890/- minus returned income of Rs. 1245110/-) in the returned filed u/s 153A ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver, the appellant chose to file the return u/s 153A at the originally returned income, thereby omitting income already assessed and accepted in earlier proceedings. The explanation of oversight is nothing but an generalized argument for the sake of argument and does not inspire confidence, particularly when the appellant was fully aware of the earlier assessment and tax paid thereon. The fact that the addition was already made in earlier assessment does not absolve the appellant from the obligation to correctly disclose income in the return filed u/s 153A. Failure to do so amounts to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The reliance placed on judicial precedents dealing with bona fide mistakes is distinguishable on fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Departmental Representative (hereinafter referred to as "the learned DR") supported the orders of the authorities below. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. 12. Before turning to the two limbs of the controversy, it is useful to set out the facts which are not in dispute. First, the sum of Rs 1,23,780 was not an income which came to light for the first time in the proceedings under section 153A of the Act. It was added by the AO in the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 30.11.2016, the assessee accepted that addition, did not carry it in appeal, and the resultant demand was paid. Second, nothing bearing upon this sum was found in the course of the search cond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as a human error which we are all prone to make. The calibre and expertise of the assessee has little or nothing to do with the inadvertent error. 15. The judgment lays down that where the correct particulars are already on the record, an omission to carry them into the computation is a human error and not a design to conceal, and that such an inadvertent and bonafide error attracts no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts before us fall squarely within that principle. The sum of Rs 1,23,780 was not an income unknown to the Department. The AO had himself added it in the assessment made under section 143(3) of the Act on 30.11.2016 and the tax upon it had been paid. Just as the particulars in Price Waterhouse Coopers (P....