|CORAM:||Sanjay Arora (AM), Vijay Pal Rao (JM)|
|CATCH WORDS:||furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, penalty|
|DATE:||November 5, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||November 8, 2014 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|S. 271(1)(c): Explanation that bona fide mistake was committed on advice of CA is a reasonable one as per Explanation 1B of s. 271(1) and does not attract penalty|
When there is no attempt on the part of the assessee to show the Long Term Capital Gain in a different category then merely because a concessional rate of tax was applied in the revised return does not ifso facto lead to the conclusion that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income. Even otherwise, all these facts and circumstances supports the explanation of the assessee that the concessional rate of tax on Long Term Capital Gain was applied on the basis of the advice of the Chartered Accountant, therefore, it was a bona fide mistake. This explanation, in our view is quite reasonable as per the Explanation 1B of section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act particularly in view of the fact that the assessee did not claim the benefit of indexed cost while computing the Capital Gain in question. This is not a case that the Long Term Capital Gain in question is not eligible for benefit of indexed cost. The claim of concessional tax applied on the Long Term Capital Gain, though, is against the provisions of Income Tax Act, however, it is based on the fact that the benefit of indexed cost was available to the Capital Gain in question which was not claimed by the assessee. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of CIT(A) in deleting the penalty by following the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhousecoopers 348 ITR 306 (SC).