COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), PUNE

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenging correctness of both the learned lower authorities action imposing sec.270A(8) and (9) penalty of Rs.10,38,976/-; thereby holding it to have “under-reported” income as a 2 ITA.No.1204/PUN./2023 “consequence of mis-reporting”; learned DR vehemently supported the same on the ground that the taxpayer herein has been found not to have disclosed it’s interest income of Rs.14,61,904/- representing interest on income tax refunds; during the course of quantum assessment.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s vehement arguments. We find no reason to sustain the impugned penalty on merits itself. More particularly, in light of the material available in assessee’s paper book running into 79 pages. We find from the assessee’s corresponding audited books [including P & L A/c] at pages 10 to 22 read with details of indirect incomes as well as the ledger(s) that it had duly included the foregoing interest of Rs.14,61,903.67/- in the indirect income head of Rs.15,16,593.67/- duly forming part of the computation submitted in quantum proceedings.

3.1. Mr. Murkunde at this stage vehemently argued that the learned lower authorities may be directed to verify this alleged clinching fact. We see no reason to accept the Revenue’s remand prayer once it is found that all these assessee’s details duly form part of the case file all along right from the course of assessment to the impugned penalty proceedings. We also wish to quote hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products [2010]

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.