9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 10,98,721/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act imposed by the AO. 3. In this case the return for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 29.7.2011 declaring income of Rs. 32,71,133/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 10.9.2012. Notice u/s.142(1) alongwith questionnaire was issued on 21.8.2013 to the assessee. The assessee earned salary income from M/s UOP India Pvt. Ltd. and also "income from other sources". During the assessment proceedings AO noted that that during financial year 2010-11, the assessee was working in USA during the period from 01/04/2010 to 01/07/2010 and the assessee claimed exemption amounting Rs. 35,55,722/- citing Article 16(1) of DTAA between India and US. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal of the Assessee. 4. Against the above order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 10.9.2015, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. During the hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a small Paper Book containing pages 1 to 37 having the copy of return of income tax for AY 2011-12; copy of Rectification application under section 154; copy of India USA DTAA and Notice of demand u/s. 156 dated 24.3.2014. He submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee fully disclosed all the information asked for and has nowhere furnished any inaccurate particulars. It was the further contention that nowhere in the assessment order, it has been recorded that the appellant furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis as contained in Article 4(2), the assessee is tie-breaking to USA for the period April 1 2010 to June 30 2010. Accordingly, the assessee shall be considered as a resident of USA for the period April 1 2010 to June 302010 as per the Treaty. Since the assessee is a resident of USA for the period April 1 2010 to June 30 2010 and has exercised his employment in USA during the above period, he is entitled to claim exemption of salary in India as per Article 16(1) of the Treaty. Accordingly, the assessee has claimed an exemption on remuneration received in India amounting to Rs. 35,55,722/- in respect of the services rendered in USA. 7.1 We find that the assessee filed a return of income on July 29, 2011 declaring Rs. 32,71,133/- as the tota ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 is squarely applicable in the present case of the assessee. In this case vide order dated 17.3.2010 it has been held that the law 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 Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). This is clearly not the intendment of legislature. 7.4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
