9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e treated as concealment/inaccurate particular of income. In holding so we find support and guide from the judgment in case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] held a mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. We disagree with the finding of the authorities below. Accordingly we set aside the finding of the learned CIT (A) with the direction to the AO to delete the penalty imposed by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 128/Rjt/2018 - - - Dated:- 2-6-2020 - Shri Waseem Ahmad, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member Revenue by : Shri Suhas Mistry, Sr. D.R. Assessee by : Shri Chetan Agrawal, A.R. ORDER PER BENCH :- This assessee s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14, arises from order of the CIT(A), Jamnagar dated 21-02-2018, in proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act . 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act of the AO as well as submission dated 08/02/2018 of the AR of the appellant have been considered. The only ground of the appeal of the appellant is that the AO has erred in law as well on facts imposing the penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act. With regard to this ground of appeal, this submission dated 08/02/2018 of the AR of the appellant is not found to be tenable. The AO in the assessment order u/s. 143(3) has made addition of ₹ 34,912/-because of non disclosure of interest on FOR and addition of ₹ 24,612/- on account of disallowance of wrong claim of expenses. Subsequently, the AO has levied the penalty of ₹ 18,390/- u/s. 271(l)(c) on these two additions of ₹ 59,524/-, As regards, the levy of penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) on addition of ₹ 34,912/-, the submission of the AR of the appellant is not acceptable in view of the reason that fact regarding non disclosure of this interest of ₹ 34,912/- was detected by AO only as a result of scrutiny assessment. This is not the case ofthe appellant that it has suo-moto disclosed this amount of interest of ₹ 34,912/- in his return of income. If the scrutiny of the case of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee failed to disclose such interest income in the income tax return without any dishonest intent. Thus in such circumstances, we are of the view that there cannot be any penalty for the addition made to the total income on account of such interest income. In holding so we draw support from the order of ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Kanbay Software India Pvt. Ltd. 122 TTJ 721 wherein it was held as under: Whether or not a person has acted bona fide reflects the state of his mind in respect of his conduct, and, therefore, the assessee has his inherent limitations in establishing this aspect of the manner. All that the assessee can do is to explain the circumstances in which he has acted in a particular manner and set out the related facts. The explanation for bona fides, at the cost of repetition, needs to be considered in a fair and objective manner and in the light of human probabilities. As long as the explanation given by the assessee is in the light of the human probabilities, there are no factual errors or inconsistencies, and it is supported by reasonable supporting evidences regarding factual elements embedded therein, if any, the bona fides should be taken as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the unprecedented challenge of Covid 2019 outbreak, resulting the lockdown in the country, the orders though substantially prepared but could not be pronounced for the unavoidable reasons within the maximum period of 90 days. In such circumstances we find that the Hon ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of JSW Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No. 6103/MUM/2018 vide order dated 14-5-2020 extended the time for pronouncing the order within 90 days of time by observing as under: 9. Let us in this light revert to the prevailing situation in the country. On 24th March, 2020, Hon ble Prime Minister of India took the bold step of imposing a nationwide lockdown, for 21 days, to prevent the spread of Covid 19 epidemic, and this lockdown was extended from time to time. As a matter of fact, even before this formal nationwide lockdown, the functioning of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai was severely restricted on account of lockdown by the Maharashtra Government, and on account of strict enforcement of health advisories with a view of checking spread of Covid 19. The epidemic situation in Mumbai being grave, there was not much of a relaxation in subsequent lockdo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n lockdown, we should compute the period of 90 days by excluding at least the period during which the lockdown was in force. We must factor ground realities in mind while interpreting the time limit for the pronouncement of the order. Law is not brooding omnipotence in the sky. It is a pragmatic tool of the social order. The tenets of law being enacted on the basis of pragmatism, and that is how the law is required to interpreted. The interpretation so assigned by us is not only in consonance with the letter and spirit of rule 34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situation Hon ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that directed while calculating the time for disposal of matters made time-bound by this Court, the period for which the order dated 26th March 2020 continues to opera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
