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

2017 (2) TMI 498 - ITAT JAIPUR

2017 (2) TMI 498 - ITAT JAIPUR - TMI - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - claim of entire interest as deduction u/s 24 under the head income from house property - AR of the assessee submitted that the AO has not pointed out this mistake but it was detected by him - Held that:- The assessee filed the revised return by paying the balance tax and brought to the notice of the AO during assessment proceedings by letter dated 21-10-2010. It is also noted that the AO in the assessment order mentioned that on peru .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xtent of ₹ 1.50 lacs under head income from house property. It is also noticed that this is the first year of the assessee claiming such deduction u/s 24(b) of the Act. - CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which is directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 819/JP/2016 - Dated:- 6-2-2017 - Shri Bhagchand, Accountant Member Assessee by : Shri Tanuj Agarwal, CA Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT- DR ORDER Per Bhagchand, AM The assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. Penalty of ₹ 27,759/- was levied by the Assessing Officer as the deduction on interest on housing loan had been claimed at ₹ 2,39,832/- as against ₹ 1,50,000/- allowable by law. It was submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the mistake was detected by the Authorized Representative and he advised the appellant to rectify the mistake and pay the taxes by filing a revised return. Thus, a revised computation was s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

red and hence no penalty is leviable. It is seen from the record that in the notice issued on 21.01.2010 and 16.07.2010, by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, queries had been made regarding deductions made under Chapter VIA and proofs of the same had been called for. The assessee has filed the revised computation on 21.10.2010, thus the assessee s claim that the revised computation is filed suo moto is not correct. The same has been filed only after a specific query was ra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e lie voluntary disclosure, buy peace, avoid litigation to explanation its conduct are not recognized by the statue under the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c). It is trite laws that voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he has to be absolved from penalty. Further, it was observed that it is the statutory duty of the 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

on of this transaction in the assessment proceedings, in consequence to the specific notice, issued by the Assessing Officer, the undisclosed income would not have got unearthed at all. Reliance is place on the following observations in the case of 60 taxmann.com 352 (Madras) in the case of Lanxess India (P) Ltd. Here is a case where the appellant-assessee had claimed the deduction for the royalty payment for the second time, when it was in fact claimed in the preceding assessment year and allow .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ined to the earlier year and part of the royalty payment attributed to these certificates had already been claimed and allowed as deduction to the assessee in the earlier years. Thereafter, when the assessee was further questioned, with a cryptic reply by way of the letter dated Marc 14,2005, no cogent and reliable evidence were shown by the assessee, as such a huge amount could not have been claimedas deduction by inadvertence for the second time. T said plea has also been repelled by the Supre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

categorical finding that the assessee suppressed the income by making a wrong claim of royalty payment, which actually pertained to earlier assessment years, which was claimed and allowed and therefore, thought it fit to levy penalty u/s 271(1)© of the Act. In view of the discussion as above, since the disclosure made by the assessee cannot be said to be voluntary and also no reasonable cause could be demonstrated by the assessee the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is confirmed. 2.2 During the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

owance of ₹ 89,832/- out of interest on housing loan by observing as under:- 3(a) During the course of assessment proceedings, it is noticed that the assessee has claimed housing loan interest of ₹ 2,39,832/- in the head of Income from House Property . AR of the assessee has been asked to produce the details of the loan and property details. Perusal of the reply of the assessee, it is found that the assessee has wrongly claimed interest on housing loan u/s 24(b) of ₹ 2,39,832/- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to the total income of the assessee. Since the assessee has concealed its income and has filed inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© are being initiated separately. 2.4.1 In penalty proceedings, ACIT vide his order dated 28-06-2011 imposed the penalty of ₹ 27,759/- by observing as under:- …… Despite the opportunity provided vide this office show cause notice dated 14-06-2011 and fixed on 20- 06-2011 for hearing neither the assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ft with no alternative other than to impose a penalty of ₹ 27,759/-. Working of penalty is as under:- Tax on concealed income or tax sought to be evaded ₹ 27,759/- Minimum Penalty imposable @ 100% ₹ 27,759/- Maximum Penalty imposable@ 300% ₹ 83,277/- Penalty imposed u/s 271(1)© ₹ 27,759/- 2.4.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty of ₹ 27,759/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted 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

ing the revised return. The assessee filed the revised return by paying the balance tax and brought to the notice of the AO during assessment proceedings by letter dated 21-10-2010. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the AO has not pointed out this mistake but it was detected by him. It is also noted that the AO in the assessment order mentioned that on perusal of the reply of the assessee, it is found that the assessee has wrongly claimed interest on housing loan u/s 24(b) of ₹ 2,3 .....

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