9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 148. The case of the assessee is covered by this clause (c) of Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) and, hence, when the AO has determined the total tax on the income assessed at Rs. 2,08,142/- whereas the self-assessment tax paid by the assessee before the notice u/s 148 was issued is Rs.2,16,470/-, then balance would be nil and ,consequently, there would be nil amount of tax sought to be evaded for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Accordingly, when the amount of tax to be evaded is nil in the case of the assessee, then question of levy of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise and hence, the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 2,10,000/- is not justified and the same is deleted. Though assessee has advanced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfined to bed-rest and, therefore, the assessee could not file the appeal within a period of limitation. He has, thus, pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful, but due to circumstances, which were beyond control of the assessee and, therefore the same may be condoned. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative has not seriously objected to the condonation of delay by considering the reasons as medical problems of the assessee. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as material placed on record. The assessee in the application as well as supporting affidavit has explained reasons for delay as suffering from various diseases and serious ailments. The summary of the medical a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin the period of limitation and accordingly the delay of 165 days in filing the present appeal, is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding, the penalty order which is bad in law, unjustified, illegal, void ab-initio. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 2,10,000/- which is not leviable. 6. In the case of the assessee, the assessment u/ 143(3) read with Section 147 was completed on 21st December, 2018, at a total income of Rs. 12,00,400/-. The AO noted that the assessee did not file original return of income for the year under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sponse to notice u/s 148, the assessee filed the return of income and declared the income of Rs. 12,00,400/-, which was accepted by the AO while passing the order u/s 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act. There is no addition made by the AO in the assessment framed u/s 147 read with section 143(3). Further, as per Explanation 4(c), when the assessee has already paid selfassessment tax and nothing was outstanding, then penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable. He has referred to the computation of income and penalty by the AO as well as the demand u/s 156 and submitted that the AO has accepted the selfassessment tax paid by the assessee, seven years prior to the notice issued u/s 148, then the amount of penalty ought to have been calculated, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee is not voluntary, but in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions as well as the material placed on record. Though the assessee did not file a valid return u/s 139, however, the self-assessment tax was paid by the assessee of Rs. 2,16,470/- vide challan dated 29.07.2011, placed at page no.17 of the paper book. Thereafter, the assessee has paid tax of Rs. 8,310/- vide challan dated 19.06.2017. The AO has acknowledged the self-assessment tax paid by the assessee in computation of income and calculation of tax of Rs. 2,16,470/-, which is placed at page no. 8 of the paper book. This fact is also reflected in Form No. 26AS placed at page no.18 of the paper book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, when the amount of tax to be evaded is nil in the case of the assessee, then question of levy of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise and hence, the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) ,of Rs. 2,10,000/- is not justified and the same is deleted. Though the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee has advanced various contentions against the levy of penalty, however, the penalty found to be not justified and liable to be deleted, on the ground of no amount of tax sought to be evaded, then other pleas raised by the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee becomes academic in nature and we do not propose to decide each and every argument advanced by the assessee . 11. In the result, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
