9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the assessment filed revised computation of income, and included entire income from house property in its income and such revised computation was accepted by assessing officer, in such circumstances, at the best it could be a case of under reporting of the income. AO made disallowance of interest expenses on the basis of the details furnished by the assessee only. However, considering the peculiar facts of the present case, the underreporting allegedly done by the assessee cannot amount to misreporting as the assessee had furnished all the details of deductions claimed under different heads of income. We find that in Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP case [ 2022 (6) TMI 130 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that where penalty was levied on assessee under section 270A alleging misreporting of income, however, fact that assessee had furnished all details of transactions relating to disallowance made and Ao as well as assessee had used same details to arrive at different quantum of disallowances, this by no stretch of imagination could be held to be 'misreporting' and further, in absence of details as to which limb of section 270A was attracted, impugned penalty order was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee filed reply dated 01/01/2021. In reply, the assessee stated that there is no income from house property during the preceding years and there were no interest expenses claimed in earlier years. The reply of assessee is extracted in para 3.1 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer not accepted the reply of assessee and noted that alongwith reply, the assessee filed copy of rent deed, computation of income of Sonal Rajesh Dalal and Champaklal Dalal HUF, who were other two co-owners of the property. In their respective computation sheets, they have shown income of Rs. 2,43,414/- and Rs. 2,20,283 respectively in the name of Sonal Rajesh Dalal and Champaklal Dalal HUF respectively. The Assessing Officer further recorded certain discrepancies and find that the rental income has not been reflected under the head income from house property but shown in the income of other sources . The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assesse has manipulated the facts. Further no statutory deduction @ 30% on account of repairs etc. as available under Section 24(a) is claimed in computation of income of other co-owners. Further in AS-26 and ITS details, the rental payment has been reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s received from jurisdictional assessing officer on the immunity application of assessee under section 270AA. The assessing officer further recorded that a final show cause notice dated 24.02.2022 was issued to the assessee to know the status of immunity application pending. The assessing officer recorded that no response was received from the assessee. The assessing officer was of the view that benefit of section 270AA cannot be availed, where penalty is initiated under section 270A(9) on the amount added by misrepresentation of facts and figures. The assessing officer by taking view that assessee misreported its income and levied the penalty equal to 200% of tax payable of misreporting income. The misreporting income in the assessment order was Rs. 48,202/-. Thus, the assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 96,404/- under section 270A in order dated 02.03.2022. Aggrieved by the order of penalty under section 270A, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee was adjudicate by NFAC vide order dated 17.08.2022 and was dismissed by taking view that application for immunity was filed after 1- 1/2 years of delay and there is no provision under section 270AA for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r contesting the additions. The assessing officer issued show cause notice for levying penalty under section 270A. In response to show cause notice, the assessee responded and submitted that they have applied for seeking immunity and filed form-68 before jurisdictional assessing officer. The assessing officer sought report form jurisdictional assessing officer, who neither confirmed the fact, if the application of assessee under section 270AA is rejected or immunity is granted. However, facts remained the same that the application of assessee was not rejected as it was neither communicated to the assessee or to the assessing officer who was seized with the penalty proceedings under section 270A. Though, the assessing officer levied penalty under section 270A by taking view that immunity cannot be availed as the penalty was initiated under section 270A(9). The ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of assessing officer by taking view that application for seeking immunity was filed belatedly and no provision under which the assessing officer could condoned the delay. 9. We find that the finding of assessing officer and ld CIT(A) are on different footing. Though, we are in agreement with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
