ANUJ RAJKUMAR KHANNA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 26(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 July 2016AY 2010-113 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 was a bona fide mistake and not a deliberate concealment of income. Since the TDS was already suffered and the information was available with the department, no intention to conceal could be attributed to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to include salary income of Rs. 15,73,177/- in his original return of income. This omission was due to the TDS certificate not being provided by the employer and the return being prepared by an unqualified tax practitioner. The assessee later revised the computation of income upon obtaining a duplicate TDS certificate.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the omission was a bona fide mistake and TDS was already deducted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO

For Appellant: Shri G.P. Mehta
For Respondent: Shri Ajay, DR
Hearing: 29.06.2016Pronounced: 21.07.2016

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 29.06.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 21.07.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee on 1.1.2015 is against the order of the CIT (A)-28, Mumbai dated 20.10.2014 for the assessment year 2010-2011.

2.

In this appeal, the only issues raised by the assessee relates to the levy of penalty of Rs. 4,86,209/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee was an employee worked for two different companies, ie (i) M/s. EFG Wealth Management India Pvt Ltd and (ii) M/s. Ambit Capital Pvt Ltd, during the year under consideration. At the time of filing of the return of income, assessee did not consider the salary income of Rs. 15,73,177/- earned by him from M/s. EFG Wealth Management India Pvt Ltd. During the assessment proceedings, assessee revised the computation of income, copy of which is placed at page 4 of the paper book and claimed TDS made by the said company and paid the self-assessment tax of Rs. 67,543/-. AO made assessment on this revised computation of income and levied penalty for “concealment of salary income” earned by the assessee from M/s. EFG

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 →