9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 901X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expiry of the time limit as specified in section 153. In favour of revenue Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Difference in income as TDS statement and ROI u/s 153 – Concealment of income – Assessee filed return u/s 153 in response to notice u/s 148 – AO made addition on said amount & levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – Assessee contended that it was not deliberate concealment and it was on account of oversight – Held that:- The plea of the assessee that error was on account of oversight is not tenable. The assessee had filed return of income in pursuance to notice issued u/s 148 and claimed benefit of TDS on the commission earned. The assessee has shown in his ROI, the exact amount of TDS whereas he has shown Rs. 5,00,000/- less in the commission earned. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 208/-, during the current year and Rs.15.00 lakhs during the financial year ended on 31.3.2008. Notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee on 17.7.2008. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return on 16.2.2009 relevant to the assessment year 2007-08 admitting total income of Rs.26,18,340/-. In the income and expenditure statement, the assessee admitted brokerage and commission of Rs. 76,92,208/- whereas in the TDS certificates the amount was shown as Rs. 81,92,208/-. The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 17.11.2009 made addition of Rs.5.00 lakhs in the income returned by the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also separately initiated against the assessee. The Assessing Officer vide se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned in the income and expenditure statement and it was not deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee and it was on account of oversight. Therefore, the penalty on account of concealment of Rs.5.00 lakhs and non- filing of return voluntarily is liable to be set aside by the Tribunal. 5. On the other hand, Shri Vikramaditya, representing Revenue submitted that the assessee had deliberately not filed the return of income. If the notice would not have been issued, the assessee would not have filed the return of income, thus evading the tax liability. Mens rea was apparent on the part of the assessee in not filing the returns and escaping with tax liability. 6. We have heard the submissions made by the parties and have gone t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akhs in the income returned by the assessee. The plea of the assessee that error was on account of oversight is not tenable. The assessee had filed return of income in pursuance to notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The assessee has claimed benefit of tax deducted at source on the commission earned. The assessee has shown in his return of income, the exact amount of tax deducted at source whereas he has shown Rs. 5,00,000/- less in the commission earned. This cannot be said to be an inadvertent or a bonafide mistake. It is clearly a deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to conceal the income. We, therefore, reject the submissions of the A.R. of the assessee on this issue and dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
