TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) also while deciding the issue has categorically mentioned that there is no doubt that the assessee did not disclose different sources of income which come to the notice of AO through AIR information and in the facts of the present case the asessee had not brought any facts or explanation before us in order to show that there was some bonafide mistake on the part of the assesse to conceal the said income. Since, the assessee failed to discharge his basic onus to prove before us or before the revenue authorities that the mistake on the part of assessee was bonafide and therefore not reflected the said income in the return of income. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly upheld the order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) passed by AO. - Decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved by the assessee was found to be of ₹ 15,65,336/-. Similarly, the interest income received by the assessee from the bank as per AIR was ₹ 75,190/- which was not offered for taxation and consequently after seeking reply from the assessee, the order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act,1961 was passed. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A) and the CIT(A) after considering the case of the assessee had dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 18.10.13. 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee filed the present appeal before us on the grounds mentioned herein above. Ground No. 1 4. At the very outset ld. AR representing the assessee submitted that assessee had fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a (SC)] 2. CIT vs. Ms. Sania Mirza (Andhra Pradesh HC) 3. CIT vs. M/s. Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd (Bombay HC) 4. The CIT vs. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd (Bombay HC), 5. Dy. CIT vs. Shri Suraj Singh (ITAT Lucknow Bench). 4.2 On the other hand, ld. DR representing the revenue relied upon the orders passed by lower authorities and submitted that there was a intentional concealment on the part of the assessee and therefore supported the orders passed by lower authorities. 5. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by the lower authorities. We have noticed that at the time of passing penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act,1961 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee had filed revised return on the same date of coming to know the defect and the reassessment was passed on the same date and the assessee paid tax due as well as interest thereon. Therefore, it was held that mistake on the part of the asessee in that case was inadvertent but the fact of the present case are different. In the present case the assessee had made excuse on the ground that he was not acquainted with the tax laws in India and he had not received any intimation from the bank regarding the interest income. 5.2 We have noticed that although the assessee has shown income from the profession of consultancy to the tune of ₹ 14,62,000/- however, as per AIR information income under this head was found to be ₹ 15, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
