9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d have submitted the revised return at the TAPAL of the A.O. We find that the facts of the case clearly indicate the bonafide of the assessee. It is settled that unless the conduct of the assessee is contumacious, penalty cannot be levied. See Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT] - justification in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act, or where the breach flows from a bonafide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute.. Thus we delete the penalty levied in this case. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 6566/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 18-2-2019 - Shri Shamim Yahya, AM And Shri Amarjit Singh, J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income from Investment in Shares/MF ₹ 3,92,000/- ₹ 61,07,419/- 4. The AO received AIR information that the assessee had sold property for ₹ 48,95,000/- during the relevant AY. However, no capital gain was offered by the assessee. In response to same, the AR submitted revised computation of income and offered sale proceeds of ₹ 48,95,000/- for taxation. Accordingly, the AO has added the amount of ₹ 48,95,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 5. Regarding disallowance u/s 57(iii) of Act, the AO observed that the appellant offered interest income of ₹ 5,33,875/- and other income of ₹ 155,368/- under the head 'Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incomes should not be considered as incomes arising out of concealment. But the AO has stated that the case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny as the appellant had not disclosed all material facts truly and correctly in the return of income filed for the year. The AO has rejected the contention of the appellant and has levied penalty of ₹ 13,83,007/- u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. 8. Upon the assessee s appeal, the ld. CIT(A) referred to the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. He referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd .(327 ITR 510)(Del). He further re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revised return. During the course of assessment in the first submission before the detection by the A.O., the assessee submitted the revised return. These submissions have not been disputed by the A.O., rather he has said that the assessee could have submitted the revised return at the TAPAL of the A.O. We find that the facts of the case clearly indicate the bonafide of the assessee. It is settled that unless the conduct of the assessee is contumacious, penalty cannot be levied. This proposition is supported by the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC). In this case it was held that An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
