SATISH GARG,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, INCOME TAX OFFICE, YAMUNA NAGAR

The assessee in this case has agitated the action of the ld. CIT(A) against the confirmation of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,63,700/- u/s Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee has invited our attention to the impugned penalty order dated 28.06.2016 to submit that, in fact, there was no intentional furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income in this case. The ld. counsel submitted that the Assessee during the year had received interest income from two firms. The amount of Rs. 6,04,298/- was received from M/s Aggarwal Wood Industries, Yamunanagar and further an amount of Rs. 74,537/- from M/s Punjab Wood Products. However, due to clerical mistake the concerned clerk has put the amount of Rs. 74,537/- twice, i.e., instead of the amount of Rs. 6,04,298/- received form M/s Aggarwal Wood Industries, the amount of Rs. 74,537/- was mentioned. When, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer pointed out about the aforesaid discrepancy, the Assessee immediately submitted to the Assessing Officer that the 254-Chd-2024 Satish Garg, Yamunanagar - 3 aforesaid discrepancy has occurred due to the clerical error and offered the difference of the amount as income of the Assessee. The ld. Counsel, therefore, has submitted that this is not a case of intentional furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. The aforesaid discrepancy occurred only due to the clerical error. The ld. Counsel, in this respect, has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT, Koltaka-1’ [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on identical facts, has held that if the discrepancy had occurred through a bonafide and inadvertent error this can only be described as human error which we all are prone to make. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus, held that the imposition of penalty in such a case was not justified.

In the case in hand, the ld. AR of the Assessee has also demonstrated satisfactory that the discrepancy pointed out by the Assessing Officer was on account of a bonafide error, therefore, the levy of impugned penalty in the case in hand is not justified and the same is, accordingly, ordered to be deleted.

""यथ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"त/ CIT

"वभागीय""त"न"ध, आयकरअपील"यआ"धकरण, च"डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड"फाईल/ Guard File