TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Narayanamurthy Naik, DR ORDER This assessee s appeal for AY.2016-17 arises from the CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad s order dated 15-11-2019 passed in appeal No.0068/CIT(A)-7/Hyd/2019-20, in proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, the Act ]. Case called twice. None appeared at assessee s behest. 2. Coming to the assessee s sole substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in imposing Section 271(1)(c) penalty of ₹ 1,61,472/-. 3. Mr.Naik invited my attention to the CIT(A) s detailed discussion reading as follows: 5. All the grounds of appeal are against levying of penalty u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings. While completing the penalty proceedings, the AO did not consider the fact that the TDS of ₹ 1,52,908/- was deducted on salary income of ₹ 13,35,589/- and the same is reflected in Form 26AS, which is in the full knowledge of the department and which does not amount to neither concealment of income nor furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. The word 'Conceal means not allow to be seen, hide, Prevent (something) from being known, keep secret. As TD5 on the above said income is already been deducted and reflected in Form 26AS, kindly delete the penalty on the income earned from salary. Explanation with regard to Deduction u/s.80DD ₹ 89,450/-: While filing the revised retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the assessment proceedings the assessee requested the AO to consider the original return filed on 13.07.2016 as final, vide para 3 of the assessment order. Whereas the AO has considered the revised return. Due to this the assessee has ended up in more tax payable than what legitimately payable, due to mistakes in revised return. Assessee did not challenge the quantum appeal before appellate authorities. Stating that the inaccurate particulars of income has been furnished in the revised return, the penalty proceedings were initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) and the assessee has not appeared for the proceedings. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of ₹ 1,61,472/- is levied on the following items Difference in salary repo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 845750 1443429 Income under the head house property -200000 -200000 -150000 -150000 1.80C 2.80D 3.80G 4.80DD Net Total Income 150000 15000 250 0 1078179 150000 15000 250 0 1078179 100000 0 0 89450 506300 100000 0 0 0 1193429 Note: All the deductions claimed in the original Return of Income were supported by documentary evidences. The deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 336000 246020 89980 Note: The above calculations are supported by loan statement. Though the assessee has requested for considering the original return during the assessment proceedings the AO has considered the revised return for the purpose of deductions and the original return for the purpose of income. In the assessment order while calculating the total income the AO vide para 4 has considered the salary income from the original return filed. This clearly shows that there has been no concealment in the case of assessee. As per the above statement (tabular information) it is clear that not only the income but also the loss and other deductions were re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary certificate furnished. On factual aspects of the case, as argued by the AR of the appellant, the appellant had claimed lesser deduction of ₹ 50,000/- under head income from house property, ₹ 50,000/- u/s. 80C and ₹ 15,000/- under section 80D of the IT Act while filing the revised return of income as against the claim of similar deductions in the original return of income. Hence/ the income sought to be evaded requires to be reduced by ₹ 1,15,000/- (50,000 + 50,000 + 15,000/-). The contention of the AR of the appellant that the appellant inadvertently filed salary income of ₹ 8,45,750/- in the revised return of income as against actual income under the head salary of ₹ 14,43,429/- is not acceptable on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
