TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r consideration was filed by him on 30-10-2006 declaring total income of ₹ 2,37,910/-. From the capital account of the assessee filed along with the said return, it was noticed by the A.O. that the assessee has received interest of ₹ 7,19,129/- on FDRs with bank and ₹ 13,275/- on his SB account balance during the year under consideration. Although the assessee had claimed credit for the tax deducted at source by the bank from interest on FDRs, income from interest on FDRs as well as on his SB account balance aggregating to ₹ 7,32,404/- was not offered to tax by the assessee in his return of income. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the A.O. therefore added the said amount to the total income of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act. It was contended that the assessee had simply missed out to include the interest income by inadvertence while filing the return of income. 4. The submissions made by the assessee were not found acceptable by the ld. CIT(A) and he confirmed the penalty imposed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the following reasons given in para 6 of his order:- 6. I have carefully considered the issue. I am entirely in agreement with the Ld. AO that the appellant s action in claiming the TDS against his tax liability and yet not offering the income pertaining to such TDS in his total income amounts to an act of commission or a positive act of filing inaccurate particulars of his income. The appellant is a developer whose accounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. He also submitted that similar interest income received by the assessee in the earlier years and in the subsequent years was duly disclosed by the assessee in the returns of income filed for the said years. Relying on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), he contended that the case of the assessee is not a fit case to impose the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and urged that the same may be cancelled. 6. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below in support of the Revenue s case that the case of the assessee is a fit case to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He submitted that by not including the int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Apex Court held as under (Headnote):- Held, allowing the appeal, that the facts of the case were peculiar and somewhat unique. Notwithstanding that the assessee was a reputed firm and had great expertise available with it, it was possible that even the assessee could make a silly mistake. The fact that the tax audit report was filed along with the return and that it unequivocally stated that the provision for payment was not allowable under section 40A(7) of the Act indicated that the assessee made a computation error in its return of income. The contents of the tax audit report suggested that there was no question of the assessee concealing its income or of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. Apart from the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
