APURVA CHANDRAKANT SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 18(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1500/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 September 2020AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there was a lack of application of mind in the assessment order for levying the penalty. The assessee's conduct was not contumacious, and therefore, the penalty was unjustified.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80C, but inadvertently claimed an amount higher than what was eligible. The Assessing Officer restricted the deduction, and subsequently levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly levied when the assessee's claim was inadvertently incorrect and not contumacious.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 80C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

For Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari
Hearing: 17.09.2020Pronounced: 22.09.2020

This is an appeal by the assessee directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 14.12.2018 for A.Y. 2013-14.

2.

The issue raised is that learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 12,066/-.

3.

In this case the assessee is an individual earning income from salary, capital gain and other sources. In the assessment order Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was asked to submit proof of chapter VIA deduction, the assessee submitted that assessee has inadvertently advanced the claim of a payment of said sum of Rs. 1,45,750/- u/s. 80C in addition to claim u/s. 80C for LIC, PPF and NSC amounting to Rs. 60,951/-. Hence, the Assessing Officer restricted the claim of deduction u/s. 80C of Rs. 60,951/-. On this issue penalty was also levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In penalty order it was noted that the assessee has submitted that assessee has wrongly claimed deduction of Rs. 1,00,000/- instead of Rs. 60,951/-. Hence, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 12,066/- on the difference of Rs. 36,198/-.

3. Upon assessee’s appeal, learned CIT(A) confirmed the same. Against this order the assessee has filed appeal before the ITAT.

4.

I have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. Upon careful consideration I find that in this case Assessing Officer does not even mention as to what was the claim of assessee for deduction u/s. 80C. He has simply noted the submission of the assessee and thereafter he has made computation. There is not even whisper that the Assessing Officer is making addition of Rs. 36,198/-. In these circumstances, I find that there is complete lack of application of mind in the assessment order levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence the penalty in this regard is totally unjustified. Moreover, the conduct of the assessee is not contumacious to warrant levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). In this regard I place reliance upon the order of the Larger Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) for the proposition that in such circumstances the authority may not levy penalty. Accordingly, I direct that penalty of Rs. 12,066/- in this case is deleted.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules on 22.9.2020.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →