Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-I’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXVII, New Delhi dated 12.5.2014 pertaining to the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07 on the following grounds . “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirming the penalty of Rs.18,768/- levied under section 271(1)(c) by the AO, is bad both in the eye of law and on facts.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard in clear violation of principle of natural justice.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty on the basis of a is understanding that the letter for withdrawal of appeal was filed by the assessee in relation to penalty appeal and not for quantum.
Ms.Deepika Bammi, N.Delhi 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty despite the fact that there is neither concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming penalty under Section 271 (1 )(c) amounting to Rs.18,768/- despite the fact that the omission to include bank interest was a bonafide mistake on the part of the assessee without there being any deliberate intention to furnish inaccurate particulars.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) as no finding has been given on merit regarding concealment in the order passed by the AO.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that penalty proceedings are independent proceedings and as such mere addition made in assessment does not tantamount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal
.”
2. The facts of the case are brought out at para 3 of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) which is extracted for ready reference. “3. The assessee is an employee of M/s Groz Engineering Tools P.Ltd. drawing income from salary and the return of income was filed on 21.2.2007 declaring a total income of Rs.5,19,240/-. During the assessment proceedings the AO noticed that interest income of Rs.61,330/- was not offered to tax and the assessee filed a revised computation on 10.12.2008 including this amount as her income. The assessment was accordingly completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 17.12.2008. Penalty proceedings were also initiated and a penalty of Rs.18,768/- u/s 271(1)(c ) was levied for concealment of income as the AO was not satisfied with the assessee’s explanation offered during the penalty proceedings that the non disclosure of excess interest income of Rs.61,330/- was not a wilful default.”
[2] Ms.Deepika Bammi, N.Delhi 3. I have heard Shri Ved Jain, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee and Shri T.Vasanthan, Ld.Sr.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of material on record, orders of lower authorities, case laws cited, I hold as follows.
After hearing rival contentions, I am of the considered view that non- declaration of interest income from Savings Bank account while filing the return of income is an inadvertent mistake on the part of the employee. The explanation given by the employee in my view is a bonafide explanation. Thus the penalty levied has to be deleted by applying the proposition laid down in the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts P.Ltd. (2010) reported in 322 ITR 158 (S.C.) and judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Price Water House Coopers P.Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) reported in 348 ITR 306 (S.C.) .
The Ld.Sr.D.R. pointed out that the assessee had not pressed the grounds of appeal
before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee on the very next day had filed a letter dated 13.5.2014, wherein the submission was made to the Ld.CIT(A) stating that she was under wrong impression that the appeal was against the quantum addition made u/s 143(3) and not an appeal against S.271(1)(C) of the Act and had by mistake submitted a letter dt. 12.5.2014. I accept this submission of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee as bonafide explanation. Hence I delete the penalty levied and allow this appeal.
6. In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th December,2015.
Sd/- (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: the 15th December., 2015 *manga
[3]