TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn on realising the mistake at the time of filing the return in response to notice under section 153A. The amount involved is ₹ 1,21,539. The said wrong claim could have been discovered by the assessee or could have been noticed by the AO in time after filing the return under section 139(1). However, the said incorrect claim did not get noticed either by the assessee or by the AO and its correction at the time of filing of return under section 153A would not lead to imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c). - Decided against revenue Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - undisclosed foreign income - Held that:- The return revised by the appellant is within the limit stipulated as per section 139(5) and therefore gets substituted by the retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst of all we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.6436/Del/2016. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return of income in response to notice issued under Section 153-A at an income of ₹ 27,46,560/- as against income returned in a return filed under Section 139(1) at ₹ 25,84,820/-. The reasons for increase in income disclosed in a return filed under Section 153A was on account of non inclusion of $ 1.39 of interest from foreign bank and $ 891.99 on account of income from investment in foreign assets amounting to ₹ 40,200 (converted at ₹ 45). In addition an amount of ₹ 1,21,539 had been shown as income from other sources which was on account of income from future and option transac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Neeraj Jindal in ITA No.463/D/2016 dated 09.02.2017 where the relevant facts and decision are reproduced hereinbelow: 13. At the outset, it must be noted that pursuant to the search and seizure operation conducted under Section 132(4) of the Act, the assessee was given notice under Section 153A to file fresh return of his income. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised returns and the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A was accepted as such by the A.O. However, the A.O. was of the opinion that inasmuch that the income disclosed by the assessee under Section 153A was higher than the income in the original return filed under Section 139(1) and since in his view, such disclosure of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn filed under section 139(1) had set off the said income against the loss incurred. However, while filing return under section 153A, the same was withdrawn in view of the realisation that the same was not permissible as per law. The explanation given by the appellant for disclosing reduced income in the return filed under section 139(1) is factually correct and the said reduced income is not attributable to any income regarding which particulars had not been correctly filed. The erroneous claim made earlier has been withdrawn on realising the mistake at the time of filing the return in response to notice under section 153A. The amount involved is ₹ 1,21,539. The said wrong claim could have been discovered by the assessee or could h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evising the income was on account of conversion of income from foreign assets amounting to US $529.74 at the higher rate of ₹ 50.88 i.e. ₹ 28,306 as against the correct conversion amount of ₹ 25,790. The assessee on being confronted with proposed penalty submitted before the AO that the impugned mistake was on account of adoption of wrong rate of US $. The AO thereafter highlighted the reliance placed by the appellant on the judgement of ITAT, Delhi F bench in the case of Pawan Kumar Gupta vs ACIT CC6, New Delhi. The AO also placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble ITAT, Chennai bench in the case of ACIT CC2(5) versus Shrimati J. Maithali. As per the argument made by ld. counsel for the assessee and on perusal of the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion as is evident from the assessment order dated 24.03.2014 whereby he has assessed the income at ₹ 30,38,938. 8.3 The return revised by the appellant is within the limit stipulated as per section 139(5) and therefore gets substituted by the return filed under section 139(1). Since there is no difference between the income returned in a return filed under section 139 and the assessed income, there is no cause for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The same is therefore rightly directed to be deleted by learned CIT(A). 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 10. To sum up, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day 28th April, 2017. - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
