9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs. 1,61,472/-. 3. Mr.Naik invited my attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion reading as follows: "5. All the grounds of appeal are against levying of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant made the following submissions: "In the case of assessee a penalty Vis. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 1,61,472/- on the total addition of Rs. 6,87,129/- which include salary income of Rs. 5,97,679 and deduction claimed u/s.80DD of Rs. 89,450/-. Explanation with regard to Salary Incomers. 5,97,679: > The assessee, Shri Manikyam Guruvula who is in GMR Polytechnic College has filed his Original Return of Income for the Asst Year 2016-17 admitting a taxable income of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the income earned from salary. Explanation with regard to Deduction u/s.80DD Rs. 89,450/-: > While filing the revised return, the assessee wrongly claimed deduction u/s.80DD whereas the assessee is actually having deduction U/s.80D for an amount of Rs. 15,000/-. > During the scrutiny proceedings also the assessee has not claimed the deduction u/s.80Dfor an amount of Rs. 15,000/- paid for medical insurance with LIC. > The claim of Rs. 89,450/- u/s.80DD is an erroneous one and not intentional. > Hence, kindly delete the penalty on the above amount of Rs. 89,450/-." 5.1. The AR of the appellant filed further submissions and the contents of the same are reproduced as under: "> The assessee, Shri Manikyam Guruvula who is working ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levied on the following items > Difference in salary reported in original return and revised return Rs. 5,97,679 > While completing the penalty proceedings, the AO did not consider the fact that the TDS of Rs. 1,52,908/- was deducted on salary income of Rs. 13,35,589/- and the same is reflected in Form-26AS, which is in the full knowledge of the department and which does not amount to neither concealment of income nor furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. > As per section 192 TDS shall be deducted at the rates applicable to individual based on the income but not adhoc percentage. Also there is no scope to any setoffs other than loss from house property. So assessee is obliged to report the income shown in Form 26AS as salar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28000 20314 7686 Feb-16 28000 18944 9055 Mar-16 28000 20175 7825 Total 336000 246020 89980 Note: The above calculations are supported by loan statement. > Though the assessee has requested for considering the original return during the assessment proceedings the AO has considered the revised return for the purpose of deductions and the original return for the purpose of income. In the assessment order while calculating the total income the AO vide para 4 has considered the salary income from the original return filed. This clearly shows that there has been no concealment in the case of assessee. > As per the above statement (tabular information) it is clear that not only the income but also the loss and other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the salary certificate furnished. On factual aspects of the case, as argued by the AR of the appellant, the appellant had claimed lesser deduction of Rs. 50,000/- under head income from house property, Rs. 50,000/- u/s. 80C and Rs. 15,000/- under section 80D of the IT Act while filing the revised return of income as against the claim of similar deductions in the original return of income. Hence/ the income sought to be evaded requires to be reduced by Rs. 1,15,000/- (50,000 + 50,000 + 15,000/-). The contention of the AR of the appellant that the appellant inadvertently filed salary income of Rs. 8,45,750/- in the revised return of income as against actual income under the head salary of Rs. 14,43,429/-" is not acceptable on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
