SACHIDANAND PADGAONKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 26(2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6020/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 February 2017AY 2010-117 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 omission to include the interest income was bonafide and due to the circumstances of the assessee being abroad and his father's medical condition. The lower authorities failed to prove that the assessee's explanation was false or not bonafide, and the assessee's conduct did not indicate deliberate concealment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a software engineer, failed to declare interest income from savings and fixed deposits in his return of income. The return was filed by his father while the assessee was abroad and his father was suffering from memory loss due to a stroke. The Assessing Officer made an addition for the undeclared interest income and levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income is justified when the omission was due to the assessee's absence abroad and his father's medical condition leading to memory loss.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Dinkle Hariya
Hearing: 10/11/2016Pronounced: 03/02/2017

आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to :

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 →