9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t July, 2013 passed by the learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called "the AO") u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter called "the Act"). 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the memo of appeal filed with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") read as under:- "1. The learned CIT (A) is erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 401135/- without considering the bonafide and proper hearing and without considering all the grounds. 2. The learned CIT (A) has not appreciated the fact tax evasion is only Rs. 132198/- and not Rs. 401135/-." 3. At the time of hearing before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income from SBI amounting to Rs. 6,89,952/- on which TDS of Rs. 76,409/- was deducted was inadvertently not shown as income in the return of income filed with the Revenue and the same had been offered to tax during the quantum assessment . The assessee submitted that he joined M/s ICOMM Tele Limited in the month of February, 2009 and resigned in May, 2009. The total salary received was Rs. 6 lacs and TDS was required to be deducted to the tune of Rs. 79,407/- , against which TDS of Rs. 1,77,479/- was already deducted by the employer and hence the assessee inadvertently ignored to include the said salary income. Similarly, interest of Rs. 6,86,952/- was credited in the assessee account and the required TDS of Rs. 76,409/- had been deducted a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the return were furnished inaccurately in the return of income filed with the Revenue. The A.O. held that it is mandatory on part of the assessee to furnish the particulars of income in the return of income correctly as per provisions of the Act which the assessee failed to do so. It was observed by the AO that the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) relied upon by the assessee is not applicable in the case of the assessee as the assessee did conceal the income and filed inaccurate particulars of income.It was observed by the AO that men-rea is not to be prove as penalty proceedings are civil proceedings and willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability The A.O. a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder a bonafide belief that tax had been correctly deducted at source by the other employer ICOMM Tele Limited for April/May 2009 and hence there was no need to show in the return of income filed with the Revenue cannot be accepted as it goes against the conduct of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee's claim that this was an inadvertent mistake/ommision cannot be accepted without any valid explanation. No valid reasons were offered by the assessee for not showing these income in the return of income filed with the Revenue . It was observed that the revised computation was submitted only after the case was picked up for scrutiny and specific reasons were put to the assessee, hence, it could not be said that the assessee has v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. None appeared for the assessee . The ld. D.R. submitted that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the AO and sustained by learned CIT(A) as the income earned from salary from ICOMM Tele Limited for April/May 2009 of Rs. 6,08,190/- was not declared in the return of income filed with the Revenue. The TDS was deducted of Rs. 1,77,479/- @ 29.18% on salary income from ICOMM Tele Limited. Similarly, the assessee has not disclosed the interest income from SBI of Rs. 6,86,952/- in the return of income filed with the Revenue. It was submitted that tax of Rs. 76,409/- was deducted on this interest income from SBI was not claimed in the return of income filed with the Revenue . The tax was dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed with the AO. The due taxes along with applicable interest were paid to the Revenue and assessment order in quantum was accepted by the assessee and no appeal was filed by the assessee before learned CIT(A) against quantum assessment order. On being asked by the authorities below, the assessee has submitted that it is inadvertent mistake/ommision and the assessee was under a bonafide belief that tax having deducted at source , and hence there was no need to show the same in the return of income filed with the Revenue. In our considered view based on peculiar facts of the case, the assessee has committed the mistake inadvertently for which explanation has been given by the assessee before the authorities below which is a bonafide explan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
