TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the returns have been prepared by a consultant, the explanation of the assessee could fairly substantiate that such explanation is bonafide and material relevant to the computation of the total income have been disclosed by him. In the case of Pitambar Das Dulichand [ 2003 (12) TMI 11 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] held that no penalty is leviable in such case where there is no even an iota of evidence to suggest that the mistake was with the consent and knowledge would be treated as a deliberate act. In the absence of any such deliberate act on the part of the assessee, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. Also MS. SANIA MIRZA [ 2013 (2) TMI 220 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] held that an error committed by the assessee does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, TDS @ 30% were deducted on that ESOP. The assessee has not concealed any income as it has been depicted in 26 AS bearing a TDS at higher rate of 30 % and hence no question of concealment prevails. The assessee has declared all incomes which come to our knowledge. The assessee has changed three jobs during the job period, all tax has been deducted at source. The assessee continuously used to reside outside during the course of job. The assessee filed his return of income through consultants on the basis of Form 16 and TDS and without the knowledge of ESOP and some differences of salary in reconciliation of salary slips on which TDS already deducted because he was on outstation job. The assessee has no intension of concealment of tax an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not associated with the company during the year. Therefore, non- cash ESOP income u/s 17(3) is not reflected in our return at the time of filing of the return. However, on reconciliation with 26AS the transaction came to our knowledge and we suo- moto filed a revised return in first hearing with, Hon. AO. Therefore, initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not applicable as the Hon. AO was convinced with the facts of the Salary of ₹ 4,74,697 /- has been credited to our account after deducting TDS and after leaving the job from PEL and no salary certificate was received till the date of filing of return. The assessee was of the impression that the salary credited was tax free income on account of leave encashment and retirement benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Hon. AO was convinced with the facts, of the situation at the time of assessment. As mentioned in your notice, wherein A) Such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer to be false Ans:- Question of failure to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer to be false is not arise due to all the difference income is our submission and we have, pa id taxes on that amount Before the case is fixed under scrutiny and 1st. Notice is issued under Income Tax Act, 1961, which is also depicted in the Assessment order of the AO. B) Such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lment of tax he paid all the tax dues suo- moto as a responsible citizen. There are various case laws which supports our submission that there is no deliberately default, concealment of income and we have not surrendered in the pressure of AO. It is our submission on which tax had already been paid. Hence no concealment u/s 271(1)(c) is attracted and section 263 is not attracted in our case. It is very much apparent and not a concealment matter. Following eases are quoted in support of our sayins:- CIT vs. Sania Mirza [order dated 9/12/2012 in 1TA no. 526 of 2011, CIT vs. Sidhartha Enterprises 322 ITR 80, CIT vs. Pitambarads Dulichand 273 ITR 271 . 5. During the argument before us, the ld. AR reiterated the arguments taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
