9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs initiated by the Assessing Officer were bad in law for want of pinpointing the exact limb in which subject penalty was initiated. Claim of deduction of HRA made in the original return - Held that:- As far as deduction for HRA was claimed by assessee, the same was denied only for the reason that actual payment had not been made by assessee. It is not disputed that the assessee was residing in the house of his mother to whom the rent was payable. Therefore, at best, it can be said to be a wrong claim in view of Explanation B to section 10(13A) but that does not imply that the assessee furnished any inaccurate particulars of its income. The amount was payable to mother and not to any outsider. This goes to show assessee’s bona-fide. Therefore, do not find any reason to saddle the assessee with penalty on account of claim of deduction of HRA made in the original return. Non-disclosure of interest on FDR - Held that:- As far as assessee’s non-disclosure of interest on FDR is concerned, the assessee’s explanation was, as reproduced earlier, that the assessee was of the view that he was filing return on cash basis. It is pertinent to mention that the assessee had not claimed the TDS o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, I am of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal in time and, therefore, I condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the return declaring income at ₹ 13,37,548/- was filed by assessee. The assessee had declared income from salary, house property and income from other sources. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction on account of House Rent Allowance (HRA) of ₹ 8,68,404/- u/s 10(13A) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has observed as under :- "Assessee was asked to furnish the necessary details regarding the payment of house rent like copy of the rent agreement, copy of the rent receipt and confirmation from the landlord as to receipt of the house rent. The AR of the assessee could not furnish any of the documentary evidence in support of claim of deduction on account of HRA amounting to ₹ 8,68,404/-. On further investigation and enquiry it was found that assessee has not incurred any expenditure on account of HRA. The AR of the assessee Shri M.L. Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant, furnish a revised computation of income along with the letter d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in confirming penalty amounting to ₹ 3,20,895/- u/s 271(1)(c) where present case is covered by Apex court verdict in PWC case 348 ITR 206 & Suresh chand Mittal 259 ITR 19 ; PRAYER/Relief Claimed 1. To delete the penalty levied of ₹ 3,20,895/-; 2. Any other relief as deemed fit in circumstances of the case." 7. Ld. counsel referred to page 33 of appeal set, wherein, notice dated 30.11.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 is contained and pointed out that the Assessing Officer has not specified as to under which limb of section 271(1)(c), the penalty was levied. Ld. counsel referred to page 28 of appeal set, wherein, show-cause notice dated 02.05.2012 is contained, wherein, also nothing had been mentioned. Further in the penalty order also, in the penultimate para, the Assessing Officer has, inter-alia, observed as under :- "Looking to the default of the assessee a penalty of ₹ 3,20,895/- which is minimum levy-able penalty is being imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for concealing particulars of income and filing inaccurate particulars of income." 8. Ld. counsel referred to the decision of ITAT, Delhi Benches in the case of M/s Mindmill Software Limited vs. ITO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. DR referred to the assessment order and pointed out that the penalty had been initiated on account of inaccurate particulars being furnished by assessee. He further referred to the penalty order, wherein, also the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income for which penalty had been levied. 12. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the record of the case. As far as ld. counsel's plea regarding notice u/s 274 being vague is concerned, I am not inclined to accept the same for the simple reason that notice u/s 274 cannot be read de-hors the assessment order. From reading of the assessment order, if it is evident that under which particular limb of section 271(1)(c), the penalty has been initiated then merely because in the notice u/s 274 the Assessing Officer does not specify the specific limb of section 271(1)(c), it cannot be concluded that the Assessing Officer failed to pinpoint the actual limb in which said penalty was levied. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer had clearly concluded, after confirmation of each of the two additions that assessee had furnished inaccurate/ incorrect particulars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
