TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ws as a matter of law. The burden is on the assessee. If he fails to discharge that burden, the presumption that he had concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof is available to be drawn. However in the instant case the assessee has explained the reasons for not including the particulars of income as discussed above which appears to be bonafide considering the facts and circumstances of the case. We are, therefore, of the view that the assessee could not be said to have filed "false" returns when it did not include the amount of interest and notional house property income in the taxable income in the above facts & circumstances. we also find force in the submissions of the Ld.AR that the assessee is old aged and di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd did not disclose the notional rental income of ₹ 31,020/- on one of such property as required u/s. 23(4)(b) of the Act and the interest income of ₹ 62,097/- i.e income from other sources in the original return. Thus, for non disclosure of the same the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income of ₹ 31,020/- and ₹ 62,097/- in the original return. Thus, he imposed penalty of ₹ 28,773/- for not disclosing the same in the original return and for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. 5. Before the CIT-A the assessee contended that in response to notice issued u/s. 148, the assessee declared income from House Property of ₹ 31,020/- and bank interest of ₹ 62,097 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant concealed the income to the tune of ₹ 31,020/ - as income from house property and Rs . 62,097/ - as interest from bank by not showing the above income in return of income filed originally by the appellant . Therefore, I am agree with the view that the AO rightly imposed the penalty of ₹ 28,773/ - u/s. 271 (1 ) (c ) of the IT Act . Hence, I confirm the penalty imposed by the AO of ₹ 28,773/ - u/s .271 (1) ( c ) of the IT Act . This ground is not allowed. 7. Before us the ld.AR of the assessee submits that the assessee is now aged of 80 years and a Doctor by profession and he is a law abiding citizen. He also submits that in response to notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act the assessee disclosed the said amount of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner to be false, or (B) such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate (and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him) then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed . 12. The above Explanation makes it clear that the statute visualized t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13. We are, therefore, of the view that the assessee could not be said to have filed false returns when it did not include the amount of interest and notional house property income in the taxable income in the above facts circumstances. we also find force in the submissions of the Ld.AR that the assessee is old aged and disclosure of amounts in revised and payment of taxes thereon and taking into consideration the submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and we cancel the impugned penalty of ₹ 28,773/- imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT-A. Therefore, this ground of assessee is allowed. 14. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28/02/2017 - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
