9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 - ITAT DELHI] we are of the considered opinion that the action of the Assessing Officer defies the taxability of concept of real income. The undisputed fact is that in the alleged sheets of bank deposits received from the French government under DTAC, there is no mention of any interest paid by the bank to the assessee. Therefore, it is illogical to compute interest and that too at the rate prevailing in India - As in case the foundation is removed, the super structure falls. Since the foundation [assessment] has been removed, the super structure i.e. penalty must fall. Accordingly, the penalty is directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 6422/DEL/2018 - - - Dated:- 6-9-2021 - Shri N.K. Billaiya, Accountant Member, And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Priyanshu Goel, CA For the Revenue : Shri Rocktim Saikia, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] - XXVI, New Delhi dated 24.08.2018 pertaining to Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the original return, in the absence of any other incriminating evidence, does not show that the assessee has concealed his income for the relevant assessment years. On this point, several High Courts have also opined that the mere increase in the amount of income shown in the revised return is not sufficient to justify a levy of penalty. 18. The Punjab Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suraj Bhan, (2007) 294 ITR 481 (P H), held that when an assessee files a revised return showing higher income, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of such higher income filed in the revised return. Similarly, the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bhadra Advancing Pvt Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 219 CTR 447, held that merely because the assessee has filed a revised return and withdrawn some claim of depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal, (2010) 329 ITR 330 (Cal) held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded to be a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the non-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter alia, Section 139, it is clear that the ITA 463/2016 CONNECTED CASES Page 13 revised return filed under Section 153A takes the place of the original return under Section 139, for the purposes of all other provisions of the Act. This is further buttressed by Section 153A (1)(a) which reads: Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years referred to in clause (b), in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return under Section 139. 8. Since the impugned issue has now been settled in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi [supra], we do not find any merit in the levy of penalty on the amount of ₹ 2,23,68,002/-. 9. In so far as the levy of penalty on deposits made in HSBC account and interest earned thereon is concerned, this Tribunal in ITA No. 3917 to 3921/DEL/2017 and others in assessee s own case has made the following observations while deleting the addition. 24. Be that as it may, the question which needs to be highlighted is that even assuming that the statement of the assessee is paramount and sacrosanct, then there is no denial by the revenue authorities that the assessee has honoured his statement and offered ₹ 2,23,68,000/ in his return of income for A.Y 2007 08 and has paid taxes thereon. In all his submissions made during the course of assessment proceedings and highlighted by us elsewhere, the assessee was constantly stating that this peak credit was calculated by the tax authorities and at the behest of the tax authorities the assessee offered the same in his income for A.Y 2007 08 and paid taxe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue is that in all these appeals for the revenue relating to different A.Ys, the Assessing Officer was of the firm belief that the assessee must have earned some interest on the balances in his bank account with HSBC, Geneva. The Assessing Officer assumed that in India a Savings Bank account holder earns interest at the rate of 4%, therefore, applying the same rate, the Assessing Officer made the impugned addition. 33. The first appellate authority in all the A.Ys in which the revenue is in appeal found that the assumption made by the Assessing Officer is baseless and deleted the addition. 34. Before us, the learned DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer. 35. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the ld. CIT(A). 36. On the facts mentioned hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the action of the Assessing Officer defies the taxability of concept of real income. The undisputed fact is that in the alleged sheets of bank deposits received from the French government under DTAC, there is no mention of any interest paid by the bank to the assessee. Therefore, it is illogical to compute interest a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
