Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 18 - ITAT CHANDIGARH

2015 (10) TMI 18 - ITAT CHANDIGARH - TMI - Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - un-disclosed house property income - rental income inadvertently omitted in the original return was voluntarily offered for taxation during the course of assessment proceedings - Held that:- As during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee realized its mistake and pointed out the same to the Assessing Officer. There was no detection of concealed income by the Revenue Authorities. The assessee voluntarily off .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

c) of the Act can be validly levied. Therefore, cancel the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals). - Decided ion favour of assessee. - IT APPEAL NO. 210 (CHD.) OF 2015 - Dated:- 31-7-2015 - H.L. KARWA, J. For The Appellant : K.C. Jain and Shaman Jain For The Respondent : Jitender Kumar, DR ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Chandigarh dated 11. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essing Officer framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 30.1.2013, wherein the amount of ₹ 2,90,572/- on account of un-disclosed house property income was added to the total income of the assessee. Thus, net income of ₹ 2,03,400/- was added to the income of the assessee after allowing deduction under section 24(a) of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. I .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was unaware of such mistake. When our client came to knew about the mistake, he filed a revised return which could not be accepted because original return was filed late. It can also be seen from the previous year returns of our assessee that he was offering the whole rent received for taxation. The mistake in return of income was bona fide and no mala fide intention can be drawn in the above mentioned case. Various Hon'ble tribunals and Hon'ble Court's had already upheld the fact t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng to ₹ 2,90,572/- was not included in the rental income, as deduction of tax at source was not deducted thereon by the tenants, as such rent received was omitted to be taken into account. The Assessing Officer has stated that the assessee surrendered the income of ₹ 2,90,572/-, which was added to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer took a view that the assessee has deliberately concealed his particulars of income from house property and furnished inaccurate parti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essee had declared rental income of only first floor of showroom No.839-40, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh. However, the assessee had not declared rental income of the remaining floor. The explanation of the assessee was that he had suo-moto revised the return on 26.4.2011, wherein he had included the rental income of ₹ 2,90,572/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee himself voluntarily declared additional .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted that the original return was not filed under section 139(1) of the Act and, therefore, the return filed subsequently on 26.4.2011 cannot be treated as revised return . Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is relevant to observe here that the Assessing Officer has omitted to make the mention of revised return filed by the assessee on 26.4.2011. However, it is true that the return submitted on 26.4.2011 cannot be considere .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssee either concealed the income or furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. In this case, the rental income inadvertently omitted in the original return was voluntarily offered for taxation during the course of assessment proceedings. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee realized its mistake and pointed out the same to the Assessing Officer. In the case of CIT v. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 592 (Bom), .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version