9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hajan Singh, PCA For Respondent: Shri R S Negi, Sr. DR ORDER Per: K G Bansal: The assessee has taken up 11 grounds in this appeal. However, in the course of hearing before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee explained that ground no. 2 is the effective ground and other grounds are in aid of this ground. The ground is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 50,760/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 1.1 The facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return on 17.07.2006 declaring total income of Rs. 4,13,825/-. Proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s 143(2). A questionnaire was also issued in the course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s revised after issuance of questionnaire dated 27.12.2007, in which the assessee was required to furnish various details including the details of interest received from bank etc. The revision was made on 10.03.2008. Thus, the revision is not voluntary. Even after such revision, interest was underreported by an amount of Rs. 3,000/-. The interest pertains to monthly income scheme in which deposits are made with the post office. Thus, it was held that the assessee concealed income. 1.3 A number of arguments were taken before the ld. CIT(Appeals), i.e., no satisfaction has been recorded by the AO, the return has been filed voluntarily, there is no conscious breach of law. Penalty cannot be levied on the basis of assessment order which has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unications Ltd., 191 Taxman 179 (Del) . 1.4 It may also be mentioned at this stage that the demand was stayed by an interim order passed on 06.01.2012. This interim order ceases to have any force on passing this order on the appeal of the assessee. 2. The ld. counsel reiterated various pleas taken before the ld. CIT(Appeals). It was also submitted that the assessee has been disclosing interest income in past and has disclosed such income in future also. He received retirement benefits in this year and the money was deposited in a separate bank account. The interest earned from such deposit was not inadvertently shown in the original return of income. This occurred due to lapse of memory. Thus, the explanation of the assessee should be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome was due to inadvertence as the new account opened for depositing retirement benefits could not be taken into account due to lapse of memory. In the case of Zoom Communications Ltd.(supra), the jurisdictional High Court has held that the plea of inadvertence cannot be accepted without any attendant evidence. Thus, such a plea has to be examined and an appropriate conclusion has to be drawn. The facts in this case are that the assessee is a retired person. He has been regularly assessed to tax and charge of concealment of income has never been raised against him. The retirement benefits were deposited in a different account on which income accrued from month to month. He forgot to include such income as in past no such account was there. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
