TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee to the extent of ₹ 1,49,500/-, which is in dispute, but not disclosed by assessee in the return of income. Even before CIT(A), no evidence was produced in regard to this rent. Now, before us also no argument or no fact is brought on record and hence, the assessee is unable to explain its case that it is a bonafide mistake. In the absence of the same, we confirm the penalty of this amount of rent receipt not disclosed to the extent of ₹ 1,49,500/-. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. - ITA No. 6476/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 4-2-2020 - Sri Mahavir Singh, JM And Sri M Balaganesh, AM For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Michael Jerald, DR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP This appeal by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d challan dated 24th Dec., 09 which in purview of the proviso to the said section was allowable in the year of payment of the TDS. (3) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the alleged amount of disallowance was a technical disallowance under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and that the bonafide explanation was already given. (4) On the facts and circumstances and in view of the bonafnde and genuine explanation, Your Appellant prays that the penalty levied on the disallowance under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act may be cancelled. 3. We have heard the learned Sr. DR. and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee has paid the amount of TDS along w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, the assessee did not deduct TDS from the payment made to labour, transport and carting expenses. The Tribunal was also actuated by the fact that the C.A. who audited the accounts of the assessee under Section 44AB did not point out any infirmity on account of non-deduction of IDS., otherwise, all the relevant accounts were adduced before the Assessing Officer. Thus, when the Tax audit report also did not point out the TDS default to the assessee, the Tribunal concluded that the mistake made by assessee was bonafide and the explanation was found genuine. 5. The Tribunal drew support from the order of CIT(A) that there was no concealment nor was this is a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 6. The reasonings given by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 4,34,123 7. We noted that the CIT(A) in quantum proceedings deleted the addition of rent receipts to the extent of ₹ 41,323/- and ₹ 2,43,600/ and balance of ₹ 1,49,600/- was confirmed. Now, the assessee before us raised the ground that only penalty to the extent of ₹ 1,49,500/- can be argued. For this, the learned Sr. DR stated that the rent received to the extent of ₹ 1,49,500 was not disclosed by the assessee but from the order of the CIT(A), it is noticed that the contention of the assessee was that the rent was received in subsequent years and hence, not included in the current year. It was contended before CIT(A) by the assessee that penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
