9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grawal, President And Mr. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Assessee by Sh. Arun Kishore, CA Respondent by Sh. S.R. Senapati, Sr. DR ORDER Per Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Appeal by the assessee pertaining to the assessment year 2008-09 against the order of learned CIT(A)-XXI, New Delhi dated 21st August, 2012. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- i. That the order is against facts and law and is based on wrong interpretations of law facts hence is liable to be struck down. ii. The penalty of ₹ 1,88,640/- is against facts and law and is based on assumptions conjectures based on conclusions extraneous to the issue involved and the law on the point. iii. The ld. CIT(A), has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er subsequently on the basis of the revised computation computed that amount as income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and subsequently a penalty of ₹ 1,88,640/- was levied vide order dated 31.3.2008. Against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) who after considering the submissions sustained the penalty. 4. Now the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written synopsis. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the amount was wrongly offered for tax, in fact this amount was not taxable. Learned DR opposed the submission and supported th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rawal of NSS. However, on analysis of the law on the point, it was submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) during the penalty appeal that the addition on this account was not to be made because assessee neither deposited the amount in NSS nor claim any deduction for her deposits u/s 80CCA. As the section which permitted the deduction u/s 80CCA ceases to be operative from AY 1992-93, the assessee was only minor at that time. The Ld. AO has added withdrawals of ₹ 6, 06, 572 (net of interest portion already taxed) to the income of the assessee on the basis that as per the provisions of the scheme, at the time of withdrawal of money from the scheme the entire amount will be taxed including interest in the year of withdrawal. Though the sche ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pay tax on the amount received from NSS as the amount which is received by them does not get covered in the ambit of section 80CCA(2). In other words, the amount received by any person other than the assessee from NSS is not chargeable in his hands as he has not deposited the same in NSS and too, the deduction u/s 80CCA has not been claimed by him. An affidavit from assessee to this effect was submitted in first appeal. The assessee s this contention was disregarded by the Ld. CIT(A) only on the basis of the fact that no quantum appeal was filed. The Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified with his approach and this regard, reference may be made to Para 4 of page 48 of Kanga and Palkhiwala 8th Edition Vo.1, which states that it may be question whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of income submitted in assessment proceedings. Lastly, TDS deducted on the entire receipt (including principal and interest component, which far exceeded the amount of interest of 61795/-) was claimed in ITR and also shown in computation of income filed in the assessment proceedings. Under the circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that the assessee has attempted to conceal particulars of her income. At best, it can be said to be a clerical error / inadvertent mistake which, in light of recent judicial pronouncement of several courts including the jurisdictional high court and the apex court cannot be basis for levy of penalty. 7. The Revenue has not disputed the fact that this amount was offered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
