Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 807 - ITAT DELHIPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- The simple reason that notice u/s 274 cannot be read de-hors the assessment order. From reading of the assessment order, if it is evident that under which particular limb of section 271(1)(c), the penalty has been initiated then merely because in the notice u/s 274 the Assessing Officer does not specify the specific limb of section 271(1)(c), it cannot be concluded that the Assessing Officer failed to pinpoint the actual limb in which said penalty was levied. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer had clearly concluded, after confirmation of each of the two additions that assessee had furnished inaccurate/ incorrect particulars of his income. Therefore, merely because in the penultimate para, he observed that assessee has concealed/ furnished inaccurate particulars of income, cannot be the basis for holding that the Assessing Officer wrongly and mechanically initiated the penalty. Therefore, it cannot be said that the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer were bad in law for want of pinpointing the exact limb in which subject penalty was initiated. Claim of deduction of HRA made in the original return - Held that:- As far as deduction for HRA was claimed by assessee, the same was denied only for the reason that actual payment had not been made by assessee. It is not disputed that the assessee was residing in the house of his mother to whom the rent was payable. Therefore, at best, it can be said to be a wrong claim in view of Explanation B to section 10(13A) but that does not imply that the assessee furnished any inaccurate particulars of its income. The amount was payable to mother and not to any outsider. This goes to show assessee’s bona-fide. Therefore, do not find any reason to saddle the assessee with penalty on account of claim of deduction of HRA made in the original return. Non-disclosure of interest on FDR - Held that:- As far as assessee’s non-disclosure of interest on FDR is concerned, the assessee’s explanation was, as reproduced earlier, that the assessee was of the view that he was filing return on cash basis. It is pertinent to mention that the assessee had not claimed the TDS on interest of FDR in its original return of income because he had not included the interest on FDR. This shows assessee’s bona-fide inadvertent mistake of not including interest in his income. Had the assessee claimed TDS but not returned the interest income different consequences could follow. Under such circumstances, the assessee explanation cannot be said to be bona-fide. In the result, the penalty levied is directed to be deleted.
|