9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue, if the salary plus exgratia was more than Rs. 5 lacs the assessee was not eligible to claim standard deduction u/s 16(1) - HELD THAT:- The assessee was under a bonafide impression that since regular salary income was before Rs. 5 lakhs, the assessee was entitled to such deduction. It is also a fact that assessee filed the return without the assistance of advocate or counsel. There is no presumption that everybody knows the law. Therefore, there does not appear to be any malafide intention on the part of assessee for claiming standard deduction u/s 16(1) more so when the full facts in this regard were fully disclosed in the return and statement of income filed along with the return. Thus, we are of the considered opinion, the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and evidence filed/documents placed on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and order passed u/s 271(1)(c) and u/s 250(6) respectively for levying the penalty of Rs. 7020/- is illegal and bad in law. 3. That the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and CIT (Appeal) has failed to appreciate that the appellant had neither concealed the particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Only there was difference of opinion regarding Standard Deduction and inclusion of F.P.A and P.Q.A in Basic salary and D.A etc. 4. That the observations made are against facts and no evidence has been brought on record to prove that the Appellant had concealed the particulars of his income or furnis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Rs.7020/-. The ld. AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amount of Rs.7020/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO and accordingly penalty was sustained. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR filed a written submission and argued that the issue was previously agitated before the ITAT Amritsar Bench which was in favour of the assessee. In ITA 409/Asr/2003 date of pronouncement 13.10.2005 is duly placed before the bench. The relevant paragraph 5 is reproduced as below:- 5. We have heard both the parties and considered the rival submissions, examined the facts, evidence and material placed on record. It is not in di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee is also covered by the order of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Amritsar Bench. 6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. 7. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. In our considered view, the issue is squarely covered with the ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Vijay Kumar Sharma vs. ACIT, in ITA No. 409/Asr/2003 date of order 13.10.2005. Therefore, we are relying in the order of ITAT Amritsar Bench and following the direction. Accordingly, the impugned appeal order is set aside and the impugned penalty levied by the ld. AO is quashed. Accordingly, the Grounds 1 to 5 are allowed. The Ground 6 is general in nature and the Ground 7 is consequential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
