Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-I’ NEW DELHI
Before: SMT DIVA SINGH
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 09.06.2014 of CIT(A)-V, Gurgaon pertaining to 2002-03 assessment year on the ground of upholding penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.11,095/-. The relevant facts as emanating from the record are that the assessee declared an income of Rs.50,140/- by way of filing its return which was accepted by an order u/s 143(1) on 14.02.2005. Subsequently it was noticed that the assessee had received interests of Rs.54,374/- on its deposit from Baburam Om Prakash which had not been shown in the return, accordingly proceedings u/s 148 was initiated wherein the said amount was accepted as the income of the assessee resulting in the assessment being concluded at an income of Rs.1,14,210/-. As a result of this addition penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated the Ld. AR relied upon the letter dated 19.10.2007 made in the assessment proceedings stated that due to over sight the interests received was not shown and as soon as this fact was noticed the assessee has filed its return accepting the same as assessee’s income. In the penalty proceedings it was also submitted that the assessee did not maintain any books of accounts and since the accounts of Baburam Om Prakash had not been received the mistake had occurred. Not convinced with the I.T.A .No.-5648/Del/2014 explanation offered, penalty of Rs.11,095/- was levied. The said explanation was reiterating before the CIT(A). Apart from the above, it was also stated that infact before the issuance of notice u/s 148, the AO proposed to rectify the apparent error and the assessee has accepted it as a bonafide mistake. In the above background, the Ld.AR relied upon the CIT vs Rajiv Garg & Ors. [2009] 313 ITR 0256 [High Court of Punjab & Haryana] and submitted that the amount was not disclosed on account of inadvertent omission accordingly it was submitted that the penalty may be quashed.
Ld. Sr. DR on the other hand relying upon the orders of the authorities below submitted had the mistake did not been detracted the assessee would not have disclosed the income thus penalty was rightly levied and upheld.
Having heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record, I am of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances on account of the inadvertent mistake for not including the said income the explanation of the assessee deserves to be accepted. The material fact that the assessee was not maintaining books of accounts and the fact that the statement of account from Baburam Om Prakash had not been received till the finalization of return has not been disputed. This fact has been consistently argued before the AO and the CIT(A) and have not been rebutted. Accordingly accepting the explanation of the assessee as a bonafide mistake the penalty is directed to be quashed and the imputed order is set aside. The said order was pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the open Court.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 16th of November, 2015. (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:16/11/2015 *Amit Kumar*