M/S. JAYKAMAL FINANCE AND SECURITIES P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

The crux of the grievance of the assessee is with regard to the imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟).

The brief facts of this case are that during assessment proceedings for assessment year 2010-11, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed set off of brought forward business loss at Rs.33,69,239/- instead of business loss determined u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2011 at Rs.30,29,693/- for assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the excess claim of business loss was disallowed and penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2010-11 was initiated for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”.

The assessee before the Assessing Officer offered detailed explanation which is on record. The Assessing Officer, however, was of the view that the assessee could have corrected the mistake by revising his return of income for assessment year 2010-11 after the assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act was completed for assessment year 2009-10. That even during the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessee could have made submissions and admitted the mistake before detection by the Assessing Officer.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that penalty has been imposed for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” in the case of assessee. However, there is no such “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” by the assessee since even in the return of income for assessment year 2009-10, the assessee has clearly disclosed loss of current year carried forward at Rs.33,69,239/-. The Ld. AR submitted that non filing of revised return cannot be a ground for imposing penalty since all the particulars of income have been furnished by the assessee. The

Per contra, the Ld. DR relied heavily on the orders of the Authorities below.

We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. In this case, impugned penalty has been levied on the assessee for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” We have perused the copies of return for assessment year 2009-10 filed before us in the paper book wherein all the details of loss carried forward has been reflected by the assessee to the tune of Rs.33,69,239/-. Non filing of revised return is hypothetical assumption by the Department that the assessee intends to conceal the income which is however not demonstrated by any evidence on record. Hence, this cannot be accepted. Once penalty has been imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the case of the assessee as facts demonstrated there is no lapse by the assessee on this count. We take guidance from the following binding judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India:

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.