ORDER : Harsha Devani, J. 1. By this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the appellant-revenue has challenged the order dated 15.6.2018 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "B" (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 2774/Ahd/2015 for assessment year 2009-10, by proposing the following question stated to be a substantial question of law: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of 78,00,000/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 since had no assessment been made, such inaccurate particulars of income would not have come to notice?" 2. In this case, assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 28.12.2011 determining total income at Rs. 43,90,40,483/- as against the returned income of Rs. 35,37,58,700/- as an addition of Rs. 8,58,81,783/- was made on multiple counts. Subsequently, the assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,61,38,474/- and deleted the remaining amount. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing accurate particulars of income by issuing a notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act to the respondent-assessee. After considering the submissions advanced by the respondent-assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 78,00,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the following additions/disallowances which were confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the first appeal. (i) Addition of other income Rs. 1,30,869/- (ii) Disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 1,01,456/- (iii) Disallowance of exchange rate fluctuation Rs. 42,40,790/- (iv) Disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 50,00,000/- (v) Disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) Rs. 1,33,39,000/- 2.1. The assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.2. The assessee went in further appeal before the Tribunal, which by order dated 15.6.2018, deleted the penalty. 3. Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant, submitted that the assessee had made incorrect claims while filing the return and took a chance that in case scrutiny assessment is not carried out, the matter would go unnoticed. However, when during the course of scrutiny assessment, such mistakes were noticed, the assessee had submitted that it was an inadvertent mistake. However, when during the course of scrutiny assessment, such mistakes were noticed, the assessee had submitted that it was an inadvertent mistake. It was submitted that in case like the present one, where the assessee has given incorrect details and when it was cornered, it corrected the mistakes, the Assessing Officer was wholly justified in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Reference was made to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Zoom Communication P. Ltd., [2010] 191 Taxmann 179 (Delhi), wherein it has been held that the court cannot overlook the fact that only a small percentage of the income tax returns are picked up for scrutiny. If the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law but is also wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The court further held that if we take the view that a claim which is wholly untenable in law and has absolutely no foundation on which it could be made, the assessee would not be liable to imposition of penalty, even if he was not acting bona fide while making a claim of this nature, that would give a licence to unscrupulous assessees to make wholly untenable and unsustainable claims without there being any basis for making them, in the hope that their return would not be picked up for scrutiny and they would be assessed on the basis of self-assessment under section 143(1) of the Act and even if their case is selected for scrutiny, they can get away merely by paying the tax, which in any case, was payable by them. The consequence would be that the persons who make claims of this nature, actuated by a mala fide intention to evade tax otherwise payable by them would get away without paying the tax legally payable by them, if their cases are not picked up for scrutiny. This would take away the deterrent effect, which these penalty provisions in the Act have. 3.1. This would take away the deterrent effect, which these penalty provisions in the Act have. 3.1. The learned senior standing counsel submitted that in the light of the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court in the above decision, the Assessing Officer was wholly justified in levying penalty and that the Commissioner (Appeals) was further justified in upholding the same. It was submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the principles laid down in the above decision and hence, the appeal deserves consideration on the question of law as proposed or as may be deemed fit by this court. 4. This court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant and has perused the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. 5. As can be seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal while deleting the penalty, has recorded the following findings: "9. So far as the first two additions of Rs. 1,30,869/- and Rs. 1,01,956/- are concerned, we have noted that the assessee has, on it's own, accepted these inadvertent mistakes. The explanation of the assessee about these mistakes, in our considered view, deserves to be accepted. The PMS receipt break up is known only upon receipt of the statement, and, more often than not, PMS receipts are dividend receipts which are tax exempt in nature. Similarly, interest on delayed TDS is an interest payment nevertheless and it cannot be treated as a fake, malafide or patently incorrect claim. In a case in which returned income is Rs. 35.37 crores, errors of this magnitude cannot be said to deliberate errors with ulterior motives. The amounts are indeed small and explanations of the assessee are quite reasonable. Similarly, with reference to the exchange fluctuation amount of Rs. 42.40 lakhs, we find that the Assessing Officer himself has accepted the fact that even income was booked on capital account by mistake as a result of wrong posting of capital field vouchers in the revenue account. Certainly, this kind of casual approach is not desirable, but then right now we are only concerned whether the explanation of the assessee is reasonable, and whether meets the test of preponderance of probabilities, or not. Viewed on this perspective, in our considered view, the explanation offered by the assessee is reasonable and worth being accepted. Certainly, this kind of casual approach is not desirable, but then right now we are only concerned whether the explanation of the assessee is reasonable, and whether meets the test of preponderance of probabilities, or not. Viewed on this perspective, in our considered view, the explanation offered by the assessee is reasonable and worth being accepted. We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to delete the penalty in respect of addition for exchange fluctuation as well. As regards the claim of depreciation, we have noted that the assessee had purchased the building and land for Rs. 5,93,47,914/- and the stamp duty valuation of land was Rs. 1,10,99,970/-. While there is no building valuation on record, based on the above facts, the building being treated at the value of Rs. 5 crores is not an outright absurd claim as, even after reducing the stamp duty valuation of land, the building value at Rs. 4.83 crores does seem reasonable from that perspective-even though that is not legally correct, as held by the co-ordinate bench. The fact that building was demolished is a subsequent event, and adopting the stamp duty valuation figures in broad terms may result in disallowance of depreciation but the claim has some basis. Keeping in view these discussions, in our considered view, the penalty in respect of disallowance of depreciation must also stand deleted. 10. As we part with the matter, we may add that so far imposition of penalty under section 171(1)(c) is concerned, all that is to be seen is whether or not the assessee has a reasonable explanation for making a claim, irrespective of it's eventual legal admissibility, as would appeal to a fact finding authority. The test for this explanation is thus much less onerous and cannot be linked to legal correctness of such an explanation. It is in this light that the explanation of the assessee has been considered, and it cannot be construed as having any bearing on merits of the matter." 6. From the findings recorded by the Tribunal, it is evident that in case of the assessee, the returned income was Rs. 35.37 crores. In these circumstances, the court is in agreement with the view adopted by the Tribunal that in a case of this magnitude, an error of Rs. 1,30,869/- and Rs. From the findings recorded by the Tribunal, it is evident that in case of the assessee, the returned income was Rs. 35.37 crores. In these circumstances, the court is in agreement with the view adopted by the Tribunal that in a case of this magnitude, an error of Rs. 1,30,869/- and Rs. 1,01,956/-, which the assessee had on its own accepted as inadvertent mistake, cannot be said to be deliberate so as to amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 7. Insofar as the penalty in respect of addition made on account of exchange rate fluctuation amount of Rs. 42,40,790/- is concerned, the Assessing Officer has accepted that the income was booked on capital account by mistake as a result of wrong posting of capital field vouchers in the revenue account. It is evident that therefore, there was a mistake on part of the assessee while filing the return of income. In the opinion of this court, having regard to the findings recorded by the Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has found the explanation submitted by the assessee to be plausible, which in the opinion of this court is a reasonable view, there is no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 8. Insofar as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Zoom Communication P. Ltd. (supra) is concerned, while agreeing with the view adopted therein, this court is of the view that in the facts of the present case, the said decision would not be applicable, inasmuch as the Tribunal, on facts, has found that the respondent assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars in the return of income deliberately and therefore, there was no warrant for levying of penalty. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal so as to give rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference. The appeal, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, summarily dismissed.