KAMLA CHANDRASINGH KABALI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 27(2), MUMBAI

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file her return of income for the assessment year under consideration. As per ITS information in 2 ITA 6924/Mum/2018 NMS module the assessing officer noticed that the assessee had made time deposits of Rs.2,60,00,000/- in bank, acquired mutual fund of Rs.4,00,000/- and earned interest income of Rs.51,61,467/- during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. In view of this, the assessing officer believed that the income had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, after recording the reason and seeking prior approval of the Pr.C IT-27, Mumbai under section 151(1), the assessing officer issued notice under section 148. The assessee submitted that assessee had declared in IDS-26 and filed copy of working of taxes in respect of IDS-2016 (assessment year-wise and installment-wise). Except this, the assessee failed to furnish any other details. However, from the officer of the Pr.CIT-27, the assessing officer ascertained that Form 4 was not issued. Therefore, according to the assessing officer, the claim of filing IDS-2016 was invalid as it was not supported by payment of due taxes on the IDS-2016 declaration. The assessing officer, therefore, treated the entire sum of Rs.2,60,00,000/- in bank, mutual fund investment of Rs.4,00,000/- and interest income of Rs.51,61,467/- was treated as unexplained cash credits, in an order dated 18.12.2018 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, assessing the total income at Rs.3,15,61,470/-. Further, as the assessee failed to furnish her return of income as required under section 139(1), the assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271F of the Act. In response to a subsequent opportunity, the assessee explained that the assessee was eligible for immunity as she voluntarily declared income under the IDS 2016. The explanation of the assessee was not found acceptable to the assessing officer. Therefore, he levied a penalty of Rs.5, 000/- under section 271F of the I.T. Act, 1961. On appeal, the NFAC, Delhi confirmed the penalty.

Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

We have considered the submissions from either side. We find that the claim of the assessee that she has declared income under the IDS 2016 cannot be a tenable explanation as the declaration was not supported by payment of due taxes on the income declared and, therefore, it was an invalid declaration. No other reasonable cause for not filing the return of income is brought to our attention. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the authorities below were justified in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271F. We uphold the decision of the NFAC.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.