9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO has not detected the mistake but it is noticed by the AO only after perusing the reply of the ld. AR of the assessee. It is further noticed that the assessee had filed the revised return of income by paying the balance due tax on the amount excessive claimed against the restriction of deduction to the extent of ₹ 1.50 lacs under head income from house property. It is also noticed that this is the first year of the assessee claiming such deduction u/s 24(b) of the Act. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which is directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 819/JP/2016 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2017 - Shri Bhagchand, Accountant Member Assessee by : Shri Tanuj Agarwal, CA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of ₹ 27,759/- was levied. In the present proceedings, it is claimed that the income was voluntarily offered and hence no penalty is leviable. It is seen from the record that in the notice issued on 21.01.2010 and 16.07.2010, by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, queries had been made regarding deductions made under Chapter VIA and proofs of the same had been called for. The assessee has filed the revised computation on 21.10.2010, thus the assessee s claim that the revised computation is filed suo moto is not correct. The same has been filed only after a specific query was raised by the Assessing Officer on the issue. The second plea taken by the assessee is of ignorance of law. Since, assessee is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer, the undisclosed income would not have got unearthed at all. Reliance is place on the following observations in the case of 60 taxmann.com 352 (Madras) in the case of Lanxess India (P) Ltd. Here is a case where the appellant-assessee had claimed the deduction for the royalty payment for the second time, when it was in fact claimed in the preceding assessment year and allowed, and the said error of computation was unearthed during the course of the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) by the original authority for which a notice was issued u/s 143(2) and the order of the original authority dated Marc 28,2005, as extracted in the earlier portion of this order, clearly shows that when the TDS certificates in respect of the royalty p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be voluntary and also no reasonable cause could be demonstrated by the assessee the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is confirmed. 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed for deletion of penalty of ₹ 27,759/- u/s 271(1) of the Act confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed the written submission and the same has also been taken into consideration. 2.3 The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 2.4 I have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is noted from the assessment order dated 29-12- 2010 that the AO made disallowance of ₹ 89,832/- out of interest on housing loan by observing as under:- 3(a) Durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... say in this regard as he himself had admitted during the course of assessment proceedings the mistake committed by him. Therefore, I am of the view that the assessee has committed a default within the meaning of Section 271(1) of the Act and furnished inaccurate particulars of income of ₹ 89,832/- by claiming excess interest in housing loan with a motive to pay less tax therefore, I am left with no alternative other than to impose a penalty of ₹ 27,759/-. Working of penalty is as under:- Tax on concealed income or tax sought to be evaded ₹ 27,759/- Minimum Penalty imposable @ 100% ₹ 27,759/- Maximum Penalty imposable@ 300% ₹ 83,277/- Penalty imposed u/s 271(1) ₹ 27,759/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against the restriction of deduction to the extent of ₹ 1.50 lacs under head income from house property. It is also noticed that this is the first year of the assessee claiming such deduction u/s 24(b) of the Act. It is also noticed that during the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on following case laws to this effect. 1. Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Asstt. CST (1980) 124 ITR 15 (SC) 2. Motilal Padampati Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P (1979), 118 ITR 326 (SC) 3. Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972)83 ITR 26 (SC) 4. CIT vs. R.K. Golecha 173 ITR 423 (Raj.) 5. Dilip N Shroff vs. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) 6. CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts pvtltd (2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
