2023 (6) TMI 615 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of order passed by CIT-A u/s 250 - CIT raising demand u/s 156 on the ground that the assesses has furnish inaccurate particulars of Income - HELD THAT - From all foregoing decisions of the ld. CIT(A), it is clear that there is no infirmity whatsoever on all the points decided by him. The grounds taken up by the assessee in the appeal, as extracted above, do not refer to any prejudice having been caused by virtue of assessment or the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). The grounds are general and talk about the raising of demand u/s. 156, which is consequential to the assessment. There is no specific challenge to any addition. In fact, there is no addition at all inasmuch as the AO accepted the returned income and assessed the assessee at the same level. In the hue of the foregoing, it is clear that the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) is perfectly in order, not requiring any interference. Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the justification for raising demand u/s 156, explanation offered by the assessee for inaccurate particulars of income, condonation of delay, initiation of penalty u/s 270A, credit for TDS, charging of interest u/s 234A, and the overall decision of the ld. CIT(A).

Justification for raising demand u/s 156:
The appeal by the assessee questioned the justification for raising a demand u/s 156 of Rs. 5,15,323 based on inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee contended that the demand was not justified in law as it was attributable to the tax consultant's error. The explanation provided by the assessee, including evidence of a complaint filed against the tax consultant, was not rebutted by the CIT, indicating that the demand was unjustified.

Explanation for inaccurate particulars of income:
The assessee, a salaried employee, explained that the inaccurate reporting of income was due to the tax consultant's error, upon whom the assessee was reliant for filing tax returns. The assessee's track record of correct filings in past and subsequent years supported the contention that the demand u/s 156 was unwarranted given the circumstances.

Condonation of delay and penalty u/s 270A:
The delay in filing was condoned by the ld. CIT(A), and the initiation of penalty u/s 270A was deemed premature and hence not maintainable. The decisions regarding these issues were in favor of the assessee.

Credit for TDS and charging of interest u/s 234A:
The ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to allow credit for TDS amounting to Rs. 68,912 before charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 234C. Additionally, the ld. CIT(A) instructed the AO to compute interest based on the correct total income, resulting in a decision favorable to the assessee.

Overall Decision of the ld. CIT(A):
The ld. CIT(A) made several decisions in favor of the assessee, including allowing credit for TDS, directing correct computation of interest, and dismissing premature penalty initiation. The appeal did not challenge any specific addition, as the AO had accepted the returned income. Consequently, the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) was deemed appropriate, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

This summary encapsulates the key issues and decisions made in the legal judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT PUNE, providing a detailed overview of the case proceedings and outcomes.