9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has come forward with bonafide explanation and therefore the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by the A.O. on the assessee is not justified and is hereby ordered to be deleted as the case is covered by explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee - I .T.A. No.792/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 25-10-2016 - SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : None For The Revenue : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind,DR ORDER PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member This appeal, filed by the assessee, being ITA No. 792/Mum/2015, is directed against the appellate order dated 14th November, 2014 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 28, Mumbai (hereinafter called the CIT(A) ), for the assessment year 2010-11, the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) arising from the order of penalty dated 31st July, 2013 passed by the learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called the AO ) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter called the Act ). 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the memo of appeal filed with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alary received was ₹ 6 lacs and TDS was required to be deducted to the tune of ₹ 79,407/- , against which TDS of ₹ 1,77,479/- was already deducted by the employer and hence the assessee inadvertently ignored to include the said salary income. Similarly, interest of ₹ 6,86,952/- was credited in the assessee account and the required TDS of ₹ 76,409/- had been deducted and it was submitted that the assessee had not claimed the TDS amount with respect to both the additions in the return of income filed with the Revenue. The A.O. rejected the contention of the assessee and observed that the assessee had earned salary income of ₹ 6,08,190/- and the bank interest income of ₹ 6,86,952/- and the assessee himself had not voluntarily offered salary and interest income as per return of income filed and also failed to correct the inaccurate claims made in his return of income filed with the Revenue. No satisfactory explanations has been offered by the assessee for not showing this income in the original return of income filed with the Revenue but only stated that the said income remained to be taxed as Form No. 16 was not received or due to omission/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the interest income from SBI of ₹ 6,86,952/- and the tax of ₹ 76409/- deducted at source on this income was not claimed in the return of income filed with the Revenue . However, on realizing the same the assessee suomotu has filed revised computation of income before the A.O. vide letter dated 30-10-2012 and offered both the income and claimed TDS already so deducted. The assessee accordingly prayed that penalty levied is both illegal and bad in law. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee and observed that the claim of the assessee that the assessee was under a bonafide belief that tax had been correctly deducted at source by the other employer ICOMM Tele Limited for April/May 2009 and hence there was no need to show in the return of income filed with the Revenue cannot be accepted as it goes against the conduct of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee s claim that this was an inadvertent mistake/ommision cannot be accepted without any valid explanation. No valid reasons were offered by the assessee for not showing these income in the return of income filed with the Revenue . It was observed that the revised computation was submitted o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax was deducted at source on these incomes however the same was not included in the return of income filed with the Revenue. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was rightly levied by the A.O. The ld. D.R. also relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 9. We have heard the ld. D.R. and also perused the material available on record including the case laws. We have observed that the assessee was working for a short period i.e. from February to May, 2009 with ICOMM Tele Ltd. whereby the assessee has earned salary income of ₹ 6,08,190/- for April/May 2009 on which tax was deducted at source. After May, 2009, the assessee was working with Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd.(DIAL) and the assessee has duly declared the salary income from DIAL in the return of income filed with the Revenue. While computing the income from salary, inadvertently the assessee had not included the salary received for two months from ICOMM Tele Ltd. of ₹ 6,08,190/- for April/May 2009 and also the TDS of ₹ 1,77,479/- was also not claimed which was deducted on salary income from ICOMM Tele Limited. The assessee has also earned interest income from SBI which to the tune of ₹ 6,86,952/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
