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

2015 (10) TMI 747 - ITAT DELHI

2015 (10) TMI 747 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - undisclosed remittance from US - contention of the assessee that the non-inclusion of said amount in the income was on account of bonafide belief of the assessee as she was a non-resident in earlier year, as such the said amount was not taxable in those years - Held that:- In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee was a non-resident till the assessment year 2002-03, thereafter she shifted to India. The a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ention of the assessee to either conceal any income or to furnish inaccurate particulars of income because the amount received as honorarium was disclosed by the assessee and due taxes was paid when it was pointed out that the said amount i.e. foreign remittance in USD received from USA was taxable. In the present case, the AO also made the addition by disallowing 50% of the expenses claimed by the assessee on account of her visit to University of California. The said disallowance was purely on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Saini, AM For the Petitioner : Shri Ved Jain, CA For the Respondent : Shri T Vasantan, Sr DR ORDER These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders each dated 17.09.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-XXIII, New Delhi. 2. Since the common issue is involved in these appeals which were heard together, so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. First I will deal with the appeal in ITA No. 5899/Del/2014 for the assessment year 2006-07 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vied by the AO on account of remittance from US. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty rejecting the contention of the assessee that the non-inclusion of said amount in the income was on account of bonafide belief of the assessee as she was a non-resident in earlier year, as such the said amount was not taxable in those years. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rs. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty under section 271(1)(c) as no finding has been given on merit regarding concealment in the order passed by the AO. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that penalty proceedings are independent proceedings and as such mere addition made in assessment does not tantamount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 8. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eafter the department received information that the assessee had received foreign remittance in US Dollars from USA and the amount received and the said receipt was not declared in the return of income. Therefore, the AO initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response to the said notice the assessee stated that the return of income was already filed on 27.12.2006 declaring total income of ₹ 8,61,300/-. The AO during the course of assessment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

therefore, disallowed 50% of the other expenses as claimed by the assessee and made the addition of ₹ 4,58,548/- by making the following calculations: Total remittance received 19257.63 USD Expenses in USD allowed Rent paid 4163.00 USD Air Travel 378.30 USD 50% of the expenses as claimed by the assessee (6075+2025+250*50% = 4175 USD Total remittance received 11541.33 USD Considering the average rate of exchange/conservation rate @ ₹ 43.50 total consideration is calculated as ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

US had become taxable in India. When this was pointed out, she immediately revised her income tax return for A.Y. 2010-11 and included earnings from the US in taxable income and paid tax accordingly. After that, she has regularly shown her US earnings in income tax returns for A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13. In view of the above recent decisions, it is requested to take a lenient view and not impose penalty." 7. The AO however did not find merit in the aforesaid submission of the assessee an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ling her return of income in USA and was duly assessed to tax. However, after coming to India she was not aware of her income, which now became taxable in India but when this was pointed out to her, she immediately revised her Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2010-11 and paid taxes accordingly. It was stated that the assessee had no intention to conceal her income as she had filed her return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 in the USA, wherein she had duly disclosed the amounts .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d had claimed the amount to be exempt under a DTAA between USA and India. 9. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the amount of $19,257 was neither brought to tax in USA as per the US Tax Laws, nor it was declared before the Income Tax Authorities in India for taxation purposes, even though the assessee was a resident in India at that time, so it was a clear case of filing of inaccurate particulars which attracted penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accord .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

articulars of income. It was further submitted that the assessee was not aware of the facts that her income had taxable in India but when it was pointed out, she immediately revised her Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2010-11 and included the said earnings in her income and paid taxes accordingly. It was further stated that for the subsequent years as well, the assessee had included the similar earnings in the income of the respective years. So it was not a case of non-disclosure as th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) -M/s St. Soldier Properties & Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (2013) 10 TMI 781 (ITAT, Delhi) -Shri Amit Jain Vs ACIT (2015) 4 TMI 790 (ITAT, Delhi) -CIT-I, Mumbai Vs M/s Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. in ITA No. 2117 of 2012 -Jain Bros. Vs Union of India (1970) 77 ITR 107 (SC) -Devsons (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (2011) 196 Taxman 21 (Del.) -ACIT Vs Shiv Nadar (2007) 15 SOT 57 (Del) -Banaras Taxterium Varanasi Vs CIT (1988) 169 ITR 782 (All) -CIT Vs University Printe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee revised return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 but not for the assessment year under consideration and if she was under a bonafide belief that the income earned in USA was taxable then she was duty bound to disclose this income when it was specifically pointed out, by filing the revised return but no such action has been taken by the assessee. Therefore, the AO rightly levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oth the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee was a non-resident till the assessment year 2002-03, thereafter she shifted to India. The assessee was earning honorarium from the University of California, Irvine as there was a treaty between the USA and the India, the amount so received by the assessee was not taxable in USA. The assessee was under a bonafide belief that the income earned in USA was ex .....

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