1. The respondent/assessee filed its income tax return for the financial year 1995-1996, in which, an amount of Rs. 169,093,622/- was declared as a loss; in calculating the loss, an .Amount of Rs.
2. 3,860,505/- was claimed as "Technical Assistance Service" allegedly procured by the assessee from some consultant concern. However, when the Assessing Officer, confronted the assessee to file the copy of the agreement with the Consultant and also the proof that the tax at source u/S. 50(3A) has been deducted, the assessee explained in writing that this amount was inadvertently claimed and therefore, Submitted a revised return excluded in said amount towards the allowances/deductions. The Assessing Officer, however, by invoking its power u/S. 111 and considering such an action of submitting inaccurate particulars, imposed the penalty. This order, was challenged by the assessee through the appeal and the penalty has been set aside by the CIT Appeals, as per his powers u/S. 132(b). The Tribunal has upheld the order. Hence this appeal, through which the answer to the following questions has been solicited:-
(i) "Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Court was justified to say that furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the accounts, does not attract the provisions of Section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, merely for the reason, the act management was changed and subsequent management was not aware of the two facts and figures of the financial statements.
(ii) Whether immunity from penalty can be extended on the basis of revision of return u/S. 57 made after confrontation of inaccurate in statement/declaration of income."
3. Suffice it to say that providing inaccurate particulars intentionally to evade the income tax and a mistake committed in this behalf, by the assessee, are two different legal consequences. If on account of any inadvertence, which was- subsequently realized by the assessee and a revised statement in terms of Section 57 was duly filed by the assessee, the Assessing Authority should not have imposed the penalty upon him, while exercising its discretion u/S. T11. The CIT Appeals, considering it to be a mistake, has rightly interfered in the matter by invoking its authority u/S. 132(b) of the Ordinance, has set aside the imposition of the above penalty.
4. In the light of above, the questions are accordingly answered. Dismissed.