ACIT, CHENNAI vs. FAMILY HEALTH PLAN (TPA) LTD., CHENNAI

This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 6, Chennai, dated 24.02.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2011-12.

Shri Supriyo Pal, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that while filing the return of income, the assessee had not disclosed a sum of `1 Crore. The Assessing Officer, on examination, found that TDS credit statement filed in Form 26AS does not tally with the income disclosed by the assessee. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that there was clerical error in offering the income. The assessee voluntarily offered the difference of `1 Crore. Since the assessee has not furnished the particulars of income, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Referring to the order of the CIT(Appeals), the Ld. D.R. submitted that the CIT(Appeals), however, deleted the penalty on the ground that it is only an inadvertent omission on the part of the assessee. According to the Ld. D.R., it is not an inadvertent omission; it is a conscious concealment of income by the assessee, therefore, the penalty has to be levied.

On the contrary, Sh. T. Banusekar, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that it is not a conscious concealment. The assessee, in fact, offered a sum of `22,15,833/- instead of `1,22,15,833/-. Even though TDS was deducted and the same was reflected in Form 26AS, the assessee has not claimed any credit for TDS. Therefore, it is an inadvertent omission. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v.