Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ SMC ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD izlkn] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{kA loZJh iznhi dqekj dsfM;k] ys[kk lnL; ,oa egkohn loZJh iznhi dqekj dsfM;k] ys[kk lnL; ,oa egkohn izlkn] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{kA loZJh iznhi dqekj dsfM;k] ys[kk lnL; ,oa egkohn loZJh iznhi dqekj dsfM;k] ys[kk lnL; ,oa egkohn izlkn] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{kA izlkn] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{kA
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad, vide appeal no.CIT(A)-7/102/15-16 dated 24/05/2016 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 for observing the penalty of Rs.45,300/- for alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Following grounds of appeal has taken by the assessee: “1. The ld.CIT(appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the penalty of Rs.45,300/- for alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in as much as that there was no such default.
ITA No.1733/Ahd/2016 Shri Ashokkumar Y. Yadav vs. ITO Asst.Year –2010-11 - 2 - 2. She ought to have held the penalty as bad in law and on fact in as much as that the conditions given in explanation -1 to section 271(1)(c) were not fulfilled and that the explanation offered by the assessee was bona fide. 3. She ought to have held the penalty levied as bad in law as no specific default has been recorded by the A.O. while issuing the penalty notice. 4. The penalty order is also bad in law and on facts in as much no independent finding has been given by the A.O. as penalty and assessment order are separate and independent. 5. On the facts no such penalty ought to have been levied.” 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that there was cash deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- in the assessee’s saving bank account with bank of Baroda, Viramgam. In reply of the notice, appellant stated that this money was given to him by his father after selling his property. He also submitted the copy of sale deed, copy of confirmation of Rs.1,00,000/- for gift received and copy of letter of AO to bank and post office. Appellant alleged that lower authorities have not considered his submission and levied the penalty of Rs.45,300/-.
In quantum proceedings our own bench of ITAT in ITA No.168/Ahd/2015 for Asst. Year 2010-11, deleted the addition of Rs.1,00,000/- made u/s.68 of the Act. So far remaining quantum of Rs.46,605/- comprises of addition of Rs.15,025/- on account of NSC accrued interest, Rs.26,203/- towards interest credit in the Saving Bank Account and Rs.5,381/- towards interest accrued on FD on which TDS deducted, these income are in the nature of accrued income/not received or small interest income where the bank account is properly disclosed thus the case made out on behalf of the assessee that bonafide error has
ITA No.1733/Ahd/2016 Shri Ashokkumar Y. Yadav vs. ITO Asst.Year –2010-11 - 3 - accrued is plausible. Considering the smallness of amount, we would like to give benefit of doubt to the appellant and delete the penalty.
In the result, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 21/03/2018 p Sd/- Sd/- ¼iznhi dqekj dsfM;k½ ¼iznhi dqekj dsfM;k½ ¼iznhi dqekj dsfM;k½ ¼iznhi dqekj dsfM;k½ ¼egkohj izlkn½ ¼egkohj izlkn½ ¼egkohj izlkn½ ¼egkohj izlkn½ Yks[kk ln Yks[kk lnL; L; U;kf;d lnL; U;kf;d lnL; Yks[kk ln Yks[kk ln L; L; U;kf;d lnL; U;kf;d lnL; (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 21/03/2018 Priti Yadav, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-5, Ahmedabad. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 06/03/2018 (dictation-pad 2 pages attached at the end of this appeal-file) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member …07/03/2018 3. Other Member… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S…………….. 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement…… 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S……. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk………………… 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order………………