BIPIN SAGAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT WD 21(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6766/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2017AY 2009-104 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 the assessee's conduct in revising the computation and withdrawing the deduction was bonafide and not contumacious. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was not warranted.

What were the facts?

The assessee initially claimed rental income under 'Income from House Property' but later revised the computation to treat it as 'Income from Other Sources', withdrawing a deduction claimed under section 24(a). The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable when an assessee revises their income computation and withdraws a deduction claim, and whether such conduct amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 24(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI PAWAN SINGH

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
For Respondent: Shri. Kailash Kanojiya

Date of Hearing –04.05.2017 Date of Order - 30.05.2017

O R D E R PER: SHAMIM YAHYA This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of Ld. CIT-A dated 10.09.2013 and pertains to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The grounds of appeal read as under:

1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -32, Mumbai, ["Id. CIT (A)"] erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(I)(c) with reference to a sum of Rs. 12,23,908 being the amount of addition

Bipin Sagar ITA no.6766/Mum./2013 to total income, by filing revised computation of income, as a result of computing income under the head 'Income from Other Sources' as against "Income from House Property' as per original computation of total income filed along with return of income.

1.2 The Appellant prays that the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) be deleted.

2. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any the above grounds at the time of hearing.

3.

In his case the assessing officer observed that during the assessment proceedings assessee has filed revised computation of income. The assessee revised the computation of income withdrawing the claim made u/s 24(a) in respect of the rental income which was actually received on account of leased property. The assessing officer observed that if the details would not have been asked the said claim would not have been declared, hence he held that proceedings are initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and making a wrong claim. In the penalty order the assessing officer held that assessee has concealed the taxable income.

4.

Upon assessee's appeal learned CIT-A confirmed the action of the assessing officer. Against this order assessee is in appeal before us. 2

Bipin Sagar ITA no.6766/Mum./2013 5. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that in this case the assessee has filed revised return of income withdrawing the deduction claimed under section 24a. No case has been made out that this revision was done on account of any query on the impugned subject. Furthermore we note that when assessing officer in the assessment order is finding the assessee guilty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income the assessing officer in the penalty order is holding that assessee has concealed income. In our considered opinion assessee has sought to revise the computation and withdrawn the claim of deduction under section 24a. In our considered opinion the assessee's conduct was bonafide and it was not contumacious to warrant levy of penalty under section 271 (1) (c). Hence we set aside the order's of authorities below and delete the levy of penalty.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30/05/2017

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 →