TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee for that matter, cannot at all be ordinarily postulated. It is only on verification of records generated from Income Tax site that the information towards interest component has come to the fore. Failure of the assessee to look into the aforesaid form at the time of filing return would not indicate any contumacious or obstinate conduct on the part of the assessee, but possibly reflect laxity or some carelessness. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that benefit of doubt should go to the assessee, more so where we have a case in hand for determination of penalty which is penal in nature. The order of the CIT(A) is accordingly set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to cancel this penalty on this score. - Decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 the assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that the brokerage/commission expenses of ₹ 4,21,336/- had remained to be considered through oversight. The same was added being undervaluation of closing stock by the Assessing Officer. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the ITS data showed receipt of refund including interest u/s.244A of ₹ 70,66,735/- in June 2012 by the assessee however, the same was not offered for taxation during the year. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added the interest component to ₹ 8,24,805/- to the total income declared. In respect of both the aforesaid additions the Assessing Officer initiated penal proceedings u/s.271(1)(c). During penalty proceedings the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pliances, taxable income position and details of various proceedings. The said chart is marked as Annexure-3. Therefrom, it will transpire that, in the initial years, i.e. AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11, Appellant has offered to tax, large amounts of income; despite the fact that, the income arose from executing a SLUM REHABILITATION PROJECT. It is submitted, Appellant has paid few crores of taxes in earlier years. As such, possibility of any malafide act of concealment vis-a-vis much smaller interest amount of ₹ 8,24,805 ought not to have been inferred in the first place. b) Non-addressal of absence of interest information in form 26AS - Appellant has been repeatedly submitting that, form 26AS did not contain any information of inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been addressed by the learned I-T authorities and, penalty has been levied on an hyper-technical proposition. e) Reliance - Appellant relies on the following decisions of Honorable Tribunals wherein, concealment penalty on interest on tax refund has- been deleted. Copies of these decisions are enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-5. (i) Orissa Oil Industries Vs. DCIT-58 ITD 403 (Cuttack) (ii) Jayanti Super Construction Vs. DCIT- ITA No.1367/AHD/2017 (iii) Steel Fab Building System Vs. ACIT-ITA No.6509/Mum/2018 f) Non-applicability of decision of Honorable Madras High Court - Learned AO has relied upon the decision in the case of Thirupathy Kumar Khemka V. (IT - 163 Taxman 591 wherein, penalty for interest on ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. DCIT in ITA No.1637/Ahd/2017 for the assessment year 2014-15. 5. In reply, the Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the assessee is aware of the details of the amount of ₹ 70,66,735/- through 142(1) intimation and therefore, he should have offered this amount to tax in the return of income. 6. We have perused the case record and heard the rival contentions on the issue of includability of the amount ₹ 8,24,805/- as income for the year under consideration. We have also given considerable thought to the penalty of 300% levied by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. This amount of penalty is revised to 100% of the tax evaded by the Ld. CIT(Appeal) during First Appellate Proceedings. We find in the case of Jay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome as reasonably demonstrated on behalf of the assessee, we are disposed to hold that statutory discretion vested with the AO for imposition of penalty ought to have been exercised for the assessee. We see force in the plea of the assessee that a person of his stature diligently paying large taxes would not imagine to keep away something from the very Department which issued the refund and which would be making the assessees assessment. Such brazen behaviour on the part of the assessee or of any assessee for that matter, cannot at all be ordinarily postulated. It is only on verification of records generated from Income Tax site that the information towards interest component has come to the fore. Failure of the assessee to look into the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
