9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, cancel the penalty of ₹ 23,800/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 515/Rjt/2013 - - - Dated:- 7-3-2014 - Shri T. K. Sharma, JM For the Assessee : Shri D.R. Adhia, AR For the Revenue : Dr. Jayant B. Jhaveri, DR ORDER This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 06.09.2013 of CIT (A)- IV, Rajkot confirming the penalty of ₹ 23,800/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual, doing business of mobile recharge coupon. For the assessment year under appeal, he filed the Return of Income declaring total income at ₹ 2,22,223/-. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the quantum order. After due examination of the facts on record and after consideration of the explanation given by the appellant during the penalty proceedings, the assessing officer was of the view that the appellant has deliberately withheld the information pertaining to the receipt of income from the said company, so as to evade taxes intentionally as understood in terms of provisions contained u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. I concur with the inference drawn by the assessing officer, that this is a clear cut case of concealment which attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, the penalty levied at ₹ 23,800/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 by the assessing officer for assessment year 2009-10 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounting method, for which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable. 4. On the other hand, Dr. Jayant B. Jhaveri, DR, appeared for the Revenue vehemently supported the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR pointed out that it was duty of the assessee to show true and correct income and since this was not done, the penalty of ₹ 23,800/- was rightly levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. 5. Rival submissions were considered. In respect of interest income, it was the duty of the payer to deduct TDS. It appears that the payer namely Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. deducted no TDS on interest income of ₹ 23,800/- and due to this mistake, the assessee has not shown this income in the books of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
