9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... norarium was disclosed by the assessee and due taxes was paid when it was pointed out that the said amount i.e. foreign remittance in USD received from USA was taxable. In the present case, the AO also made the addition by disallowing 50% of the expenses claimed by the assessee on account of her visit to University of California. The said disallowance was purely on adhoc basis, so it cannot be said that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of her income or concealed the income. In my opinion the present case can be a good case or making the addition but not for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts of this case deem it appropriate to delete the penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 5899, 5900 & 5901/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2015 - N. K. Saini, AM For the Petitioner : Shri Ved Jain, CA For the Respondent : Shri T Vasantan, Sr DR ORDER These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders each dated 17.09.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-XXIII, New Delhi. 2. Since the common issue is involved in these appeals which were heard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this appeal relates to the confirmation of penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed her return of income on 27.12.2006 declaring an income of ₹ 8,61,300/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25.08.2007. Thereafter the department received information that the assessee had received foreign remittance in US Dollars from USA and the amount received and the said receipt was not declared in the return of income. Therefore, the AO initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response to the said notice the assessee stated that the return of income was already filed on 27.12.2006 declaring total income of ₹ 8,61,300/-. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee furnished a letter stating that the total foreign remittance received by her was 19257.63 USD. The assessee submitted to the AO that she incurred expenses in regard to house rent, air ticketing. It was pointed out that the Department of Economic, University of California has mentioned that the assessee will bear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in USA and was duly assessed to tax. However, after coming to India she was not aware of her income, which now became taxable in India but when this was pointed out to her, she immediately revised her Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2010-11 and paid taxes accordingly. It was stated that the assessee had no intention to conceal her income as she had filed her return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 in the USA, wherein she had duly disclosed the amounts received by her for teaching in the University of California. The copy of the said return was furnished to the ld. CIT(A). It was further stated that in the return of income filed by US Non-Resident Alien, the assessee disclosed in Column No. 22 an amount of $19,257 in Column No. 22 which had a narration Total Income exempt by a Treaty from page 5 Item M . It was accordingly submitted that the assessee had disclosed an amount of US $19,257 in her Income Tax Return filed in the USA and had claimed the amount to be exempt under a DTAA between USA and India. 9. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the amount of $19,257 was neither brought to tax in USA as per the US Tax La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Dresser Rand India (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 328 (Mum-Trib.) -DCIT Vs Eagle Iron Metal Industries Ltd. (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 355 (Mum.) 11. It was further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the facts in right prospective and without considering the explanation given by the assessee confirmed the penalty levied by the AO. 12. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee revised return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 but not for the assessment year under consideration and if she was under a bonafide belief that the income earned in USA was taxable then she was duty bound to disclose this income when it was specifically pointed out, by filing the revised return but no such action has been taken by the assessee. Therefore, the AO rightly levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. It was further stated that the assessee did not furnish the evidences for incurring the expenses. Therefore, the AO rightly made the disallowance and was justified in holding that the assessee furnished inaccur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
