PRAVINCHANDRA I. PATEL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI

We have considered rival contentions and found that AO has imposed penalty of Rs.1,54,555/- in respect of interest income from Vijaya Bank amounting to Rs.3,82,478/- as non-disclosed in the return.

The contention of the assessee before the AO was that only due to oversight the interest from Vijaya Bank was left to be shown in the computation of income whereas interest from ICICI bank was shown. It was also submitted that assessee has no intention to conceal the interest deducted on this interest income by Vijaya Bank. During the course of assessment itself the assessee has agreed for the addition. However, the AO did not agree with the assessee and imposed penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, which was confirmed by the CIT(A), against which assessee is in further appeal before us.

We have considered rival contentions and found that due to inadvertent mistake, the assessee has left interest income, however, full disclosure with regard to the interest paid by Vijaya Bank as well as tax deducted thereon was filed along with the return of income. Even at the assessment stage, the assessee has conceded the mistake. It appears that it was a bonafide mistake for which no penalty should have been imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Reliance can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd., 83 ITR 26. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 15/12/2015. (AMARJIT SINGH) (R.C.SHARMA) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated 15/12/2015 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. आदेशाि सार/ BY ORDER, आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A), Mumbai. 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 4. ववबागीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. उप/सहायक पुंजीकार गार्ा पाईर / Guard file.

(Asstt.