CHANDRASHEKHAR R MOHITE,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-4(1)(3),, VADODARA

The appeal filed by the Assessee for A.Y. 2010-11, arise from order of the CIT(A) – 4, Vadodara dated 19.06.2017, in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is filed against the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming penalty of Rs. 95,700/- imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO.

During the course of penalty proceeding the AO has reported that assessee has neither attended nor responded to the show-cause notices issued during the course of penalty proceeding. The AO has stated that if the case of the assessee had not been taken for assessment the income received by the assessee would have been remained undisclosed. The AO has also stated that assessee has failed to offer an explanation as per Explanation 1 to Sec. 271(1)(c) that all the facts relating to the income have been disclosed by him and assessee has not satisfactory explained that he has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, the AO has levied penalty of Rs. 95,700/-.

Assessee has filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

During the course of penalty proceeding before us the Ld. Counsel has contended that there was no concealment of income as assessee has voluntarily agreed for the addition of the income to his total income. The Ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on the judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble High Court R. Mohite vs. ITO) A.Y. 2010-11 3 of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Madhuri Satish Misal 86 taxmann.com 147.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR has voluntarily contended that assessee has not made any voluntarily disclosure of the income as the non-concealment income was only deleted by the AO during the course of assessment proceeding on verification of Form No. 26AS. He has also contended that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and Ld. CIT(A) is justified in sustaining the penalty levied by the AO.

We have heard both the sides the perused the material on record. The assessee has filed his return of income on 14.06.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 5,11,054/-. Subsequently, the AO has reopened the case of the assessee u/s. 147 on the reasoning that assessee has under reported his total income in the return of income filed for the year under consideration after verification of transactions reported in the Form No. 26AS. During the course of assessment the assessee was confronted with the aforesaid evidences of not disclosing the income which was reflected in the Form No. 26AS and the assessee has admitted that the total amount of Rs. 3,15,410/- received from BCCI was not included in the return of income. The Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Madhuri Satish Misal vide [2017] 86 taxmann.com 147 (Bombay). In this regard, we observe that fact of the case referred by the Ld. Counsel are distinguishable from the fact of the case of the assessee. In the above cited case the issue was that assessee was a beneficiary of amount received as a consequences of transfer executed by her husband of which she had not knowledge and she offered that during assessment proceedings whereas in the case of the assessee the assessee has himself received the income from BCCI which was duly reflected in the Form No. 26AS and the same was within the knowledge of the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.