TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also available to the assessee from the Income Tax Department. These facts are not rebutted by the Revenue as CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty holding that it was the duty of the assessee to check and recheck the avenues of his income. The fact that it was the duty of the tax payer to follow due diligence cannot be over emphasized. Assessee is not a habitual defaulter and as per the assessment order, is shown to be “trading in wood”. There is nothing on record to show that it was an act of concealment nor is there any fact on record that there was a deliberate filing of inaccurate particulars of income. No doubt the assessee is expected to show due diligence and is mandatorily required to disclose all avenues of income before filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of interest on income tax refund was the amount of refund and interest appearing in form 26AS. But unfortunately the Form 26AS shows Nil interest on refund. 4. That assessee firm could not assess the exact amount of interest on refunds because due to mismatch, the assesssee received short refunds from the actual refunds due. The assessee firm received refunds of ₹ 19.95 Lac against the refund dues for the A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. The detail of refund dues and refunds received by assessee firm are detailed as under: Asstt. Year Refund Reed. Refund Due 2010-11 901180.00 1013790 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t thereon and he informed the assessee about the difference of ₹ 1,39,234/-. The assessee promptly agreed and did not object to paying due tax thereon because tax on interest was admittedly payable, the only distinction being that it was not in the notice of the assessee. The tax demand, it was submitted of ₹ 58,690/- was accordingly immediately paid. The following details of Refund and Interest credited available with the assessee which had been relied upon before the CIT(A) extracted at page 4 of the impugned order was referred to. Same is reproduced hereunder: Asstt Year Refund Recd. Interest as per FT System Interest shown in Difference P l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e interest income on refund to the tune of ₹ 1,39,234/-, which was also his taxable income, the addition was justifiably made. Inviting attention to page 6 of the impugned order, it was his submission that the CIT(A) has also considered the argument of the assessee wherein it has been claimed that the assessee was ignorant about the interest received on income tax refund as in regard to this respect, no intimation was available to the assessee and also as per 26AS form of the assessee downloaded from the system, no reference about interest on income tax refund was available thereon. The said submissions have been rejected by the CIT(A) on the ground that it is the duty on the part of the assessee to check and recalculate his avenues o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was an act of concealment nor is there any fact on record that there was a deliberate filing of inaccurate particulars of income. No doubt the assessee is expected to show due diligence and is mandatorily required to disclose all avenues of income before filing of his return. The mistake in the peculiar facts as considered in the decision of Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. (2012) 25 Taxmann.Com 400 (S.C) being a bonafide or inadvertent mistake cannot be the basis for levying or upholding the penalty of ₹ 43,021/-. Accepting the consistent explanation of the assessee as a bonafide inadvertent mistake, the impugned order is set aside and the penalty order is directed to be quashed and the appeal of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
