TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of revised income voluntarily before he was confronted with the incorrect claim. The assessee had blamed the accountant for an error in filing the return. Affidavit of the occupant was also filed. As stated by the counsel, such error was committed by other group assessees also. Some of them corrected the error even before the scrutiny notices. In view of such facts, we do not find that the Tribunal is in error in coming to the conclusion that the original declaration of income suffered from a bonafide unintended error. No question of law arises. Income Tax Appeal is dismissed. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.424 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2019 - AKIL KURESHI AND SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. Mr. Prakash C. Chhotaray for the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als), upon which the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned judgment deleted the penalty making following observations: 5. During the proceedings before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee demonstrated the fact of disclosure of relevant details in return of income but under the wrong headings. He also submitted that the errors were rectified duly during the course of assessment proceedings and paid relevant taxes. He also submitted that compensatory interest on the advance tax due on the income, which was not originally subject to tax while filing the return of income were also paid. He also submitted that the relevant income was wrongly declared under the wrong head of income and therefore, there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the statutory interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C as the case may be. It is a settled issue that penalty cannot be excisable in a case where the income was disclosed but under the wrong head of income. Therefore, considering the above, we are of the opinion this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 3. Learned counsel Shri Chhotaray for the Department submitted that the assessee had filed a false declaration in the original return. Only after the return was taken in scrutiny, he attempted to revise the return. Such attempt would not give immunity to the assessee from the penalty. Counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 5. We agree with counsel for the revenue that once the assessee is served with a notice of scrutiny assessment, corrections to the declaration of his income, would not grant an immunity from penalty. Particularly, in a case where the assessee during such scrutiny assessment is confronted with a legally unsustainable claim which he thereafter forgoes, may not be a ground to delete penalty. However, in the present case the facts are glaring. The assessee made a fresh declaration of revised income voluntarily before he was confronted with the incorrect claim. The assessee had blamed the accountant for an error in filing the return. Affidavit of the occupant was also filed. As stated by the counsel, such error was committed by other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
