9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 380 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition on account of TDS credit deposited by employer-State bank of India on payment of leave travel concession - non specification of charge - HELD THAT - As penalty levied u/s 271C on the employer bank has been deleted, therefore, the penalty imposed on the employee should also be deleted. We note that since assessee is an employee and he has received Form No.16 from the employer (State Bank of India) and the details mentioned in Form No.16 has been disclosed by the assessee in the return of income, therefore, there should not be any concealment on the part of the assessee, and there should not be any inaccurate furnishing particulars of income, on the part of the assessee. Penalty order did not specify the particular limb under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is levied. AO has not specified that penalty is either levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealing the income. The assessing officer himself is not clear that penalty is either levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars then in such scenario, the assessing officer himself is not clear that for which limb he is levying a penalty and so such penalty need to be quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 65,050/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether there was inconsistency in the charge levied in the assessment order and the penalty order. 3. Whether the deletion of penalty on the employer (State Bank of India) under section 271C affects the penalty on the employee. Summary: Issue 1: Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had levied a penalty of Rs. 65,050/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was based on the disallowance of Rs. 2,10,518/- claimed as Leave Travel Concession (LTC) exemption under section 10(5) of the Act, which pertained to travel outside India and was not permissible for exemption. The assessee contended that there was no malafide intention to conceal income as the details were disclosed based on Form No. 16 issued by the employer, State Bank of India. Issue 2: Inconsistency in Charges The assessee argued that there was inconsistency in the charges as the penalty was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, but the penalty order mentioned both concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal observed that the penalty order did not specify the particular limb under which the penalty was levied, making it unclear whether it was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of clarity was deemed sufficient to quash the penalty. Issue 3: Impact of Deletion of Employer's Penalty The Tribunal highlighted that the penalty levied on the State Bank of India (employer) under section 271C for non-deduction of TDS on the same LTC amount had been deleted by the Tribunal in earlier cases. It was noted that since the employer's penalty was deleted, the penalty on the employee should also be deleted. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee, being an employee, had disclosed the details as per the Form No. 16 provided by the employer, and there was no concealment or inaccurate furnishing of particulars on the part of the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the penalty of Rs. 65,050/- under section 271(1)(c) was not justified due to the lack of clarity in the penalty order and the deletion of the employer's penalty. Consequently, the penalty was deleted, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The order was pronounced on 04/09/2023 in the open court.
|
