9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the order dated 21.05.2019 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, New Delhi, confirming the penalty imposed of Rs.1,66,504/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Incometax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed her return of income o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from savings bank accounts as offered by the assessee is lesser by Rs.1,31,250/- when compared to the actual interest income earned during the year. When this fact was pointed out to the assessee, she offered the amount of Rs.1,31,250/- as income. Thus, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining the total income at Rs.17,57,890/- Since, the assessee had not offered a part of the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TDS was not fully visible on the 26AS site, the full amount of interest income could not be offered in the original return of income. However, when the mistake came to notice of the assessee, the income was offered to tax. The Assessing Officer, however, did not find merit in the submission of the assessee and proceeded to impose penalty of Rs.1,66,504/- alleging furnishing of inaccurate particul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eason for not offering the interest income to tax in the return of income, the assessee had explained before the departmental authorities that the TDS figure and the corresponding income relating to second, third and fourth quarter of the relevant financial year were made available on the 26AS site only in September, 2017 by ICICI Bank. The aforesaid explanation of the assessee appears to be belie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
