TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pareils Green - Assessee was outside India and hence, he was not in a position to file the return in due time. This has lead to delay in filing of return and consequently, additions and penalty was levied - Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the return on due time and hence, levy of penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) is not justified. Income from Quiz Programme - Assessee received some amount for participating in TV Sports Quiz. This addition was made only on the statement of the assessee and no document was seized on this account - Assessee was under a bonafide belief that receipt was not taxable. Hence, penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) is not leviable. Income from salary and interest treated as undisclosed return - CIT (A) has deleted the penalty on the salary part of the income. However, the interest income was directed to be assessed as undisclosed income - Assessee was eligible for deduction u/s. 80L. Hence, penalty on this issue is not leviable. Addition on account of alleged receivables as per seized paper - Some documents were seized. On the basis of handwriting of assessee on that paper, addition was made and penalty was levied - The addition has been made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- 3. Receipts from M/s. Sanspareils Green Ltd. 1,00,000/- 4. Income From Quiz Programme 3,000/- 5. Income from salary and interest treated as undisclosed return. 3,90,867/- 6. Addition on account of alleged receivables as per seized paper 23,000/- Total 12,03,474/- 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that, since appellant was under a bonafide belief that, cricketing receipts of ₹ 5,51,607/- are not taxable in view of instruction issued by the Board and thereafter even if it is found that, such receipts are taxable on the interpretation of the instructions, the same cannot be a basis to levy penalty under section 158BFA(2) of the Act. 4.2 That the finding recorded by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that, appellant could not explain that how he was under bonafide belief that, such receipts are exempted form tax is factually, legall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndly be deleted and appeal of the appellant be allowed. 3. At the outset, ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that he shall not be pressing the ground no. 2 pertaining to non-service of notice u/s. 143(2). Accordingly, this issue is dismissed as not pressed. 4. In this case penalty was levied u/s. 158BFA by the Assessing Officer on the following income and treated the same as undisclosed/concealed income. S.No. Nature Amount 1. Receipts from BCCI/DDCA/Ranji Trophy 5,81,607/- 2. Receipts from Badiham Cricket Club UK 1,05,000/- 3. Receipts from M/s. Sanspareils Green Ltd. 1,00,000/- 4. Income From Quiz Programme 3,000/- 5. Income from salary and interest treated as undisclosed return. 3,90,867/- 6. Addition on account of alleged receivables as per seized paper 23,000/- Total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laid down in the Dilip Sheroff case 291 ITR 519 (SC) as to the meaning of word concealment and inaccurate continues to be a good law because what was overruled in the Dharmender Textile case was only that part in Dilip Sheroff case where it was held that mensrea was a essential requirement of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Hon ble Apex Court also observed that if the contention of the revenue is accepted then in case of every return where the claim is not accepted by the AO for any reason, the assessee will invite the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). This is clearly not the intendment of legislature. We find that assessee s case draws supports from the above case law and we hold that the penalty on this account is not leviable. (B). Receipts from Badiham Cricket Club, UK - (i) On this issue during the course of search, certain documents were found marked as pages 1 to 4 of Annexure A-2 which contained work permit of Shri Ajay Sharma regarding Badiham Cricket Club, UK. It also contained contract of employment dated 4.2.2000 which evidences that, total sum of ₹ 3500/- pounds were received by the assessee for playing this club. The Assessing Officer after considering the above seiz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2000-01 is 30.6.2000. Assessing Officer did not accept the above contention of the assessee and made the addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- on the basis that similar receipt from M/s Sanspareils Green Land Ltd. pertaining to financial year 1995-96 was not disclosed. (ii) On appeal, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) affirmed the addition. (iii) On this issue ld. counsel of the assessee stated that it was the assessee s case that assessee was outside India during the intervening period so he could not file return on time and it was only on this account that there was delay in filing the appeal. Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the delay in filing of return of income cannot be a basis for levy of penalty. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that it is the submission of the assessee that assessee was outside India and hence, he was no in a position to file the return in due time. This has lead to delay in filing of return and consequently, additions and penalty was levied. In our considered opinion, there is considerable cogency in the assessee s submissions that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the return on due ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d writing of the assessee and which states lena hai at the top, followed by the names of Dippon ( ₹ 10,000/-), Kapil ( ₹ 5000/-), and Jadeja ( ₹ 8000/-). Assessee has submitted that this amount was actually payable to the concerned. However, Assessing Officer did not accept this contention and addition was made and penalty was levied. (ii) We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that there is no direct material what has been found and every receipt does not partake the character of income. It has been submitted that this addition is made on the basis of mere probabilities and assumptions. There is no direct material which has been found, which alleges and establishes that any income received by the assessee has not been declared by the assessee. We have carefully considered the submission. We find considerable cogency in the submissions of the assessee. The addition has been made on the basis of loose document, which did not conclusively prove any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. Hence, in our considered opinion, penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) is not leviable. 8. In the backg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
