ASHOK JUNEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5315/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2016AY 2008-093 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the discrepancy was a bonafide typographical error, not an intentional concealment or filing of inaccurate particulars. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal found the explanation plausible.

What were the facts?

The assessee initially claimed a short-term capital loss on mutual fund units, but later revised it to a short-term capital gain due to a typing error. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied when the assessee demonstrates that the inaccurate particulars were due to a bonafide typographical error.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH & SH.PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Hearing: 21.03.2016Pronounced: 03.05.2016

Date of Hearing 21.03.2016 Date of Pronouncement 03.05.2016 ORDER

PER DIVA SINGH, JM

1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 06.08.2013 of CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi pertaining to 2008-09 assessment year on the following grounds:-

1.

“That the order of the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the income Tax Act is bad in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case.

2.

That the Assessing Officer has erred in initiating and levying the penalty of Rs.1,65,561/- on inaccurate particulars about short term loss of Rs.12,07,233/- under section 271(1)(c). 3. That CIT(Appeal) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without considering the merits and facts of the case.” 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee returned an income of Rs.1,24,28,690/- by filing its return on 31.07.2008. The said return was processed u/s 143(1). Subsequently it was selected for scrutiny assessment based on AIR information received under CASS. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO considering the claim of short-term capital loss of I.T.A .No.-5315/Del/2013 Rs.12,07,233/- on sale of Units of Mutual Fund, required the assessee to file Computation of Short Term Capital loss from its three Mutual Fund Managers namely M/s Deuthse Bank, M/s HSBC Bank and M/s Standard Chartered Bank.

In response thereto, the assessee filed a Revised computation sheet disclosing short term capital gain of Rs.2,54,034/- against the short term capital loss of Rs.12,07,233/- claimed. Accordingly an addition of Rs.2,54,034/- was made.

Pursuant to this, the penalty proceedings were initiated. In response to the show- cause notice in the penalty proceedings, it was submitted that inadvertently there was a mistake in the computation of the short term capital gain due to typing error. It was submitted that due tax thereon stood paid and all the relevant information was already available on record. It was pleaded that it was a case of a “type error” and not of filing inaccurate particulars or a case of concealment. The submission that it was a case of wrong calculation and typographical error which is distinguishable from concealment was also made. However, the explanation offered was not accepted and penalty of Rs.1,65,561/- was imposed. In appeal, it was confirmed by the CIT(A).

3.

Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. Both the parties have been heard. The Ld.AR relies upon the submissions made before the First Appellate Authority. The Ld. Sr. DR relying upon the impugned order submitted that a mistake had been detected and had it not been so detected the assessee would have gone scot-free.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the judicial precedent as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petro Products Pvt.Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) and Price Water House Cooper Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT & Another (2012) 348 ITR 306, we find that Page 2 of 3

I.T.A .No.-5315/Del/2013 the consistent explanation offered by the assessee that the mistake has so occurred as a result of a typographical error deserves to be accepted. There is nothing on record to show that the explanation offered should not be considered to be bonafide. Being a plausible explanation in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that it deserves to be accepted. The assessee is not a habitual defaulter and the very nature of income is such that any manipulation is capable of being discovered thus when considering the overall factual matrix alongwith the explanation offered and the judicial precedent available, we set aside the impugned order and quash the penalty order. The ground raised accordingly is allowed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 03 of May, 2016.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →