JYOTIBEN PRAVINCHANDRA DALAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(2)(2), MUMBAI

We have considered rival contentions and found form record that penalty was levied with respect to the interest income offered by the assessee in its return of income vis-à-vis interest shown by bank in Form No.26. We found that in the TDS certificate bank had shown interest amount of Rs.1,05,000/- on which TDS was deducted, however, since the amount was prematurely withdrawn by the assessee, therefore, bank deducted penal interest and made payment of remaining amount. The AO observed that as per TDS Certificate assessee has received total interest 2 of Rs.1,05,000/-, whereas assessee has offered interest income of Rs.57,533/- in the computation of income and claimed credit for full amount of TDS therefore, the AO levied penalty of Rs.14,151/-. We found that there was full disclosure of facts with regard to actual amount received by the assessee. Merely because the assessee has claimed full amount of TDS as per the Certificate given by the bank does not amount to furnishing any wrong information. Assessee was actually in receipt of lower amount of interest income because of premature encashment of FDR. Accordingly, we do not find any merit for the penalty of Rs.14,151/- imposed by the AO. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the penalty.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 09/02/2016. Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (R.C.SHARMA) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated 09/02/2016 प्र.कु.मभ/pkm, नन.स/ PS आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A), Mumbai. 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 4. ववबागीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ा पाईर / Guard file. 6. सत्मावऩत प्रनत //True Copy// आदेशाि सार/ BY ORDER,