9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 143(3)/148 of the Act, it is seen that the only addition made is addition by way of a disallowance of deduction u/s 80C of Insurance premium - in order to uphold the penalty order, the Revenue would want to argue that the explanation for filing of the return late was not on account of a bonafide inadvertent mistake. No evidence or argument to support such a prayer is on record. The fact that the late filing of return on 07.11.2012 was beyond time, hence non-est is not in dispute. The fact that the very same return from the same sources has been refilled in response to notice u/s 148 in March, 2015 is not in dispute. There is nothing on record to show that the assessee had, as opposed to an inadvertent mistake, any reason to conceal as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 16.10.2018 of CIT(A), Panchkula pertaining to 2008-09 assessment year is assailed on the following grounds: 1. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A), Panchkula is bad against the facts and law. 2. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A), Panchkula has erred in levying penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act of ₹ 72630/ by holding that the assessee failed to furnish the return of income despite the fact that the assessee had duly filed the return in response to notice u/s 148 on 21.08.2015. 3. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn filed was voluntary with all due taxes etc. paid. The same return was refilled, only addition was disallowance of LIC premium which was not supported by evidence. Addition was accepted as looking at the addition of ₹ 33,285/-. Appeal, it was considered would be expensive. In these facts his arguments were two fold. Firstly that there was an explanation offered for the delay. Namely that by mistake the return had not been filed. The fact of non-filing of return was noticed only in the scrutiny proceedings of 2007-08 which were under way in November, 2012 and the assessee promptly realizing this fact voluntarily addressed this inadvertent bonafide mistake which occurred due to oversight. The return filed voluntarily was complete by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, the receipt was misplaced. The addition has been accepted. 2.2 In these circumstances, it was his submission that penalty neither for concealment nor for filing of inaccurate particulars was attracted. It was also his submission on query that this is the first time that the assessee has been visited by any penalty and the assessee is not a habitual defaulter. Relying upon the nature of the addition and the facts on account of which the assessee voluntarily filed the return in November,2012 where notice u/s 148 had been issued in March, 2015, it was submitted that the penalty imposed accepting the explanation may be quashed. 3. The ld. CIT-Dr Mr. M.Singh relying upon the orders of the authorities submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee was admittedly late and on facts that the return has been treated as non-est is not disputed by the assessee alone. In the facts of the present case the assessee is challenging the order of the CIT(A) wherein the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment has been upheld by the Assessing Officer. 5. In the facts as argued and available on record, the assessee has pleaded inadvertent mistake by way of an oversight for non filing of the return within the statutory time limit. In the facts of the present case as has been variously noticed the AO issued notice u/s 148 in March, 2015 and return from the very same sources of income stood already filed on 7.11.2012 wherein the TDS and self assessment tax upto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as filed its return on 7.11.2012. It cannot be wished away. No doubt the said return is not a valid return in the eyes of law, however, it is a necessary evidence to be taken into consideration for examining the argument whether the non filing of a valid return was a case of bonafide, inadvertent mistake or deliberate act of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The fact that the AO has accepted the return from the very same sources of income and has only made the addition by way of a disallowance of deduction u/s 80C supports the consistent argument. In these facts, I find myself unable to uphold the order wherein the penalty for concealment has been levied and upheld. Accepting the explanation of the assessee who is also no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
