9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n law and as per facts of the case going to prejudice the. appellant.. 2.. That the Id. CIT (A) is not justified in upholding the imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) on account of short disclosure of interest on Income tax refund of Rs. 139234/- in its income tax return as the assessee was ignorant about the amount of interest and no intimation of interest on refund was available with the assessee. 3. That no intimation u/s 143(1) was received by the assessee firm to know the amount of interest on refund. The only source available with the assessee firm to know the amount of interest on income tax refund was the amount of refund and interest appearing in form 26AS. But unfortunately the Form 26AS shows Nil interest on refund. 4. That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from the system, at the relevant point of time, it was submitted there was no reference to any interest on income tax refund. This fact was made known to assessee only at the time of the assessment proceedings, as the AO then came to know about the refund and interest thereon and he informed the assessee about the difference of Rs. 1,39,234/-. The assessee promptly agreed and did not object to paying due tax thereon because tax on interest was admittedly payable, the only distinction being that it was not in the notice of the assessee. The tax demand, it was submitted of Rs. 58,690/- was accordingly immediately paid. The following details of Refund and Interest credited available with the assessee which had been relied upon before the CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was his submission that the CIT(A) has also considered the argument of the assessee wherein it has been claimed that the assessee was ignorant about the interest received on income tax refund as in regard to this respect, no intimation was available to the assessee and also as per 26AS form of the assessee downloaded from the system, no reference about interest on income tax refund was available thereon. The said submissions have been rejected by the CIT(A) on the ground that it is the duty on the part of the assessee to check and recalculate his avenues of income and the assessee should have checked and calculated that the refund so claimed is more than 10% of the tax determined. Onus was upon the assessee and thus, it was submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce and is mandatorily required to disclose all avenues of income before filing of his return. The mistake in the peculiar facts as considered in the decision of Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. (2012) 25 Taxmann.Com 400 (S.C) being a bonafide or inadvertent mistake cannot be the basis for levying or upholding the penalty of Rs. 43,021/-. Accepting the consistent explanation of the assessee as a bonafide inadvertent mistake, the impugned order is set aside and the penalty order is directed to be quashed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Said order was pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing itself. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
