IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 481/2013  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ? XVI ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ARVIND NAGPAL        ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
    07.10.2013 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact accepting the explanation 
 given by the assessee that it was a case of mistake.  He noticed that 
 there was no dispute about figures and the transactions in question.  The 
 first transaction and full gain was disclosed by the respondent-assessee 
 as short-term capital gains. The assessee had paid tax @ 10% which was 
 applicable to short-terms capital gains.  The Assessing Officer had 
 observed that tax at normal rate of 30% was applicable.  The assessee 
 accepted the said position and has paid tax and interest. 
 . 
 In Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income 
 Tax, (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), the Supreme Court deleted the penalty and 
 has accepted that human errors do happen in spite of calibre, expertise 
 and due care.  Mistakes, when explained and shown to be bona fide, do not 
 justify levy of penalty.  It has been observed as under:- 
 . 
 ??The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no 
 question of the assessee concealing?its income. There is also no 
 question?of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. All that 
 happened in the present case is that through a bona fide?and inadvertent 
 error?failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. This 
 can only be described as a human error?which we are all prone to make. 
 The caliber and expertise of the assessee has little or nothing to do 
 with the inadvertent error. That the assessee should have been careful 
 cannot be doubted, but the absence of due care, in a case such as the 
 present, does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing 
 inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. Consequently, 
 given the peculiar facts of this case, the imposition of penalty on the 
 assessee is not justified.? 
 . 
 (emphasis supplied) 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 On the question relating to addition of Rs.5,56,254/-, the tribunal 
 has observed that the assessee had received the said amount as dividend 
 from a mutual fund.   As per Section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 
 the assessee was required to reduce the dividend amount from the cost 
 price of the units of mutual fund.  This again, the tribunal has held, 
 that was a bona fide mistake which was corrected/rectified by filing a 
 revised computation of income.  Full details and particulars had been 
 submitted by the assessee to the Assessing Officer.  We do not see any 
 reason to interfere. 
 . 
 The appeal is accordingly dismissed in view of the findings of facts 
 recorded by the tribunal. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. 
 . 
 OCTOBER 07, 2013 
 . 
 NA/VKR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 08 
 .