GOURAV GOENKA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal Under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act 1961 is directed against an order dated 22nd March, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "B" Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A. Number 981/Kol/2011 dismissing an appeal preferred by the assessee. The facts and circumstances briefly stated are as follows:-

(2.) Learned Advocate for the Appellant argued that all kind of errors in the Income Tax return and/or all kinds of inaccurate claims in the return do not ipso facto amount to intentional concealment attracting penalty Under Section 271 (1) (C) of the I.T. Act, and the assessing officer as well as the Appellate authorities did not consider the matter in the right perspective. Learned Advocate for the Appellant added that the mistaken claim was an accidental error for which such a huge amount of penalty should not have been imposed, especially when the return originally submitted, was revised and the Tax on such revised return was duly paid by the Appellant during the proceeding itself. Learned Advocate for the Appellant cited a decision ( Commissioner of Income Tax- Versus- Reliance Petro Products Private Limited, 2010 322 ITR 158 ), in support of his contention. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below:-

(3.) On the other hand, learned Advocate for the Respondent submitted that the wrong claim of deduction was not due to any accidental mistake or misunderstanding, for in that case he would have attempted to justify his claim which he admittedly did not do. He added that had the case not been picked up for scrutiny the petitioner would have succeeded in evading a huge amount of Tax. The decision referred to by the Appellant has no application to the present case.