Sudhanshu Srivastava ORDER
Sudhanshu Srivastava, Member (J)
1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 5.9.2018 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana [herein referred to as 'CIT(A)'] for assessment year 2014-15, wherein, vide the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the levy of penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') to the tune of Rs. 2,20,797/-.
2. At the outset, the Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that there was a delay of 09 days in filing the captioned appeal. It has been submitted in the Delay Condonation Application as well as in the Affidavit, which has been enclosed along with the Delay Condonation Application, that the appeal could not be filed within the time as the impugned order and the related papers had been misplaced by the assessee. It was prayed that in the interest of justice, the delay may kindly be condoned and the appeal be admitted for regular hearing.
3. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR opposed the application for Condonation of Delay.
4. Having heard both the parties on the issue of Condonation of Delay, in the interest of substantial justice, we condone the delay of 09 days, as it is settled law that no assessee would be benefited by simply delaying the filing of the appeal. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted.
5. It is seen from the records that assessee is a partner in a firm engaged in the dyeing and finishing of textile yarn. The return of income was filed declaring an income of Rs. 8,11,800/-. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed Long Term Capital Loss @ 20% amounting to Rs. 7,14,554/- in respect of a property situated at 102B, Maharishi Balmiki Nagar, Village Haibowal Khurd, Distt. Ludhiana, which had been gifted by him to his son Shri Akhilesh Garg on 20.7.2013. The assessee was asked by the Assessing officer to explain as to why this loss, which had wrongly been claimed, may not be disallowed and, in response, the assessee accepted that there was a mistake due to some typographical error and, therefore, the amount was added to the income of the assessee. Subsequently, the impugned penalty was imposed on the said addition.
5.1. This levy of penalty was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) and now the assessee is before this Tribunal challenging the upholding of levy of penalty by raising the following grounds of appeal:-
1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Ludhiana has erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) to the tune of Rs. 2,20,797/- as levied by the Assessing Officer, which is against the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That the CIT(A) has failed to consider the fact that this is a bonafdie typographical mistake having occurred in the office of Tax Consultant of the assessee and, thus, there is no deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to furnish inaccurate particulars of income.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the fact that as per the binding judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner Vs. Manoj Ahuja MANU/PH/0300/1984 : 150 ITR 696, wherein, it has been held that no litigant shall suffer on account of the mistake of the counsel.
4. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.
6. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that no penalty was imposable as the assessee had only made a wrong claim and not a false claim in as much as all the facts were before the Assessing officer at the time of assessment proceedings and for the reason that all the figures were duly reflected in the computation of income. It was also submitted that the m........