SHADAB BILAL,MORADABAD vs. DCIT, RANGE-II, MORADABAD

order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Moradabad [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 31.07.2019, pertaining to AY 2013-14.

“1. That original return was duly filed on due date, on the basis of electronic data available in 26AS on that date. Later on a revised statement of income was filed and the tax was paid there on, voluntarily, before assessing officer, on the basis of some additional income found posted in 26AS, after the due date of filling the original return. However, the same income as declared in the revise statement is accepted by the assessing officer. There was not any concealment of income or wilful negligence at the part of the appellant. Assessing officer has unlawfully imposed penalty u/s 271(1)( C) of income tax act 2. That Ld. lower authorities have failed to prove mensria or intention to evade the tax at the part of appellant, before imposing penalty. They have also not considered to the decisions of Hon'ble courts, which were placed before them, as follows 1. CIT Vs Suresh Chand Mittal (2000)241 ITR 124 2. Cheap Cycle Stores Vs CIT 196 CTR 173 (All) 3. CIT Vs Seth Banarsidas Gupta 2001 UPTC 365 (All) 4. ACIT Vs Ashok Raj Nath order dated 31-08- 2012 Published (2015) ITR -V- ITAT Mub-129 4. The assessee in this case has agitated the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income on 30.07.2013 wherein she declared her income from house property as per the actual rent received up to the date of filing of the return of income. Subsequently, the rent amount of three month of Rs.4,29,012/- and interest of Rs.2,75,960/- was transferred in the assessee’s account on 08.08.2013 and 11.10.2013 i.e. after the date of filing of return of income. On the basis of data available in 26 AS Form, the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, filed revised return of income, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer ( in short ‘the AO’). However, the penalty proceeding have been initiated by the AO on the ground that the assessee had not disclosed the aforesaid amount of rent and interest in her original return of income. The AO held that the Form 26AS cannot be the base for filing and determining of return of income; that merely because the amount in question was not mentioned in Form 26AS as on the date of filing of return of income that did not absolve the assessee to disclose the aforesaid income in the return of income. He accordingly levied the impugned penalty.