TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 15,13,676/- remained undisclosed due to incomplete details provided by bank S.B.I. and U.P. Gramin Bank. This goes to show that the omission on the part of the assessee is bonafide omission because when the deductor has issued a wrong TDS certificate, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. For the second addition of ₹ 13,882/- regarding excess claim of deduction u/s 80C, it is noted by the Assessing Officer that the assessee could furnish documents of only ₹ 86,118/- whereas deduction claimed was for Rs. One lac u/s 80C. Hence, it is seen that on this account also, the addition was made for the failure of the assessee to produce relevant documents without a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is incumbent upon the AO to state whether penalty was being levied for concealment of particulars of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of income have been furnished by the assessee. Because this citation is not applicable in the instant case as the A.O. has clearly established the concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of suppression of interest income from bank to the turn of ₹ 15,13,676/- and false claim u/s 80C of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the tune of ₹ 13,882/- respectively. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee on the appointed date of hearing inspite of notice and hence, we proceed to decide this appeal of the Revenue ex-parte qua the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any incriminating material for this addition and no where mentioned that the appellant deliberately concealed ₹ 15.12,676/- from his income. It is seen that the appellant has paid the due tax on the interest amount of ₹ 15,13,676/-. During the assessment proceedings the A.O. did not record any satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1))(c) of I.T. Act on the various additions made by A.O. It was essential to record the satisfaction by the A.O. before initiation of proceedings of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) but the A.O. did not do so. Even in penalty order the A.O. has mentioned that accordingly penalty notice u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainable in law by itself will not amount 'furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of assessee. (v) CIT Vs. Asim Kumar Agarwal (2005) 275 ITR 48 (Jharkhand) Held- that no penalty unless there is a deliberate attempt on part of assessee. Mere omission on part of assessee floes not amount to concealment and if no supporting evidence are available to proof deliberate attempt, no penalty lies. Considering the written submission of appellant, finding given by the A.O. in penalty order, various judicial decisions mentioned above and facts circumstances of the appellant case, I hold that the A.O. was not justified in levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of l.T. Act. 5.1 From the above Paras from the order of CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
