Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM]
ORDER
Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM
This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 06.05.2014 of C.I.T.(A)-XXXIII, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2009-10.
In this appeal the assessee has challenged the order of CIT(A) whereby the CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO imposing penalty on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (Act).
The facts and circumstances under which penalty was imposed on the assessee by the AO are as follows : The Assessee is an individual. In the course of assessment proceedings the AO on scrutiny of the information available in AIR and ITS noticed that the assessee was paid by M/s. Crisil Ltd., a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- as technical service fees. The AO further noticed that this sum had not been declared by the assessee in her return of income. This fact was confronted to the assessee. The assessee agreed to the aforesaid sum being added to the total income of the assessee. The AO accordingly added the aforesaid sum to the total income of the Assessee.
2 Smt. Anuva Bhattacharjee A.Yr.2009-10 4. In respect of the addition made by the AO in the assessment proceedings as aforesaid, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the proceedings before the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee pointed out that there was a mistake at the time of filing the return of income and there was no intention whatsoever to conceal any particulars of income. The assessee also pointed out that M/s. Crisil Ltd had deducted tax at source on the payment made to the assessee and in such circumstances there was no reason for the assessee not to declare the aforesaid item of income in the return of income. The assessee pointed out that when the mistake was pointed out by the AO the assessee readily agreed to the addition and therefore the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not called for. The explanation of the assessee was however rejected by the AO.
According to the AO had the return of income not been picked up for scrutiny, the fact of receipt of fees from Crisil by the Assessee would not have come to light and the assessee would have got away with not declaring the aforesaid income in the return of income.
On appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. The notice sent to the assessee at the address given in Form No.36 has been returned with the postal endorsement “left “ . The ld. DR sought adjournment but the prayer for adjournment was rejected.
We have considered the orders of AO and CIT(A) and also the facts and circumstances of the case and are of the view that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. It is not in dispute that the amount in question was received by the assessee by way of cheque and that the payee had duly deducted tax at source on the payment 2
3 Smt. Anuva Bhattacharjee A.Yr.2009-10 made to the assessee. Thus the tax due and payable on the income in question has already reached the coffers of the revenue. When the fact that the receipt from M/s. Crisil Ltd was not disclosed in the return of income was confronted to the assessee, she immediately agreed to the addition and also appraised the AO that non disclosure of the said receipt in the return of income was inadvertent and not willful. This circumstance clearly show that there was neither an attempt to conceal particulars of income by the assessee nor to furnish inaccurate particulars thereof. We therefore accept the plea of the assesse and hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not called for. We therefore cancel the order imposing penalty and allow the appeal of the assessee.
In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 08.03.2017.