9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alment of income was found. The assessee is a welfare fund and not in the activity of profit making. All the personnel are employed in the State of Maharashtra. We respectfully relied on the order of Sudhir kumar Chottu bhai [ 2000 (3) TMI 14 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited [ 2012 (9) TMI 331 - ITAT MUMBAI] The levy of penalty is unjustified. So, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is quashed. Appeal of assessee allowed. - Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member And Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal For the Respondent : Shri P.D.Chougule(Addl.CIT) SR DR ORDER PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: Instant appeal of the assessee was filed against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of income (in short ROI). The assessee had an assumption that the income generated for the impugned assessment year under consideration was not taxable as it is used for the welfare of the state government employees. Accordingly, after the advice from tax consultant, the assessee filed first ROI for A.Y. 2015-16. The notice under section 148 was issued and the case was reopened under section 147 for impugned assessment year. After receiving the notice, the assessee immediately filed the return U/s 148 of the Act and offered tax on the professional fees and interest income amount to Rs. 13,83,20,568/-. The assessment was framed under section 147/143(3) of the Act and no separate addition was made. The return filed under section 148 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ief of the assessee and the penalty was rejected and the order was passed in favour of the assessee. The Ld.AR further relied on the decision in the case of City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited vs ACIT-10(3) 25 taxmann.com 333(Mum), held that no income in the hands of the assessee acting totally on behalf of the state government and the revenue authorities was not justified to levy tax on the assessee. 5. The Ld.DR argued and fully relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. 6. In our considered view, the assessee was a non-filer of ROI for the impugned assessment year. But there was sufficient amount of TDS was deducted on income. After receiving the notice under section 148, the return was filed which wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
