9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER Per : Bench : A batch of appeals were filed by the different assessees against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Jammu with headquarters at Amritsar, [in brevity the 'CIT (A)'] order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] related to A.Ys. 2001- 02&2002-03. The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the ld. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-V, Amritsar (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset all the appeals of the assessees are under a common issue and have the same factual ground relating to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. So, all the appeals are taken together, heard together and adjudicated together. For the sake o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing. 7. It is Therefore prayed that the order of Assistant Commissioner and CIT (Appeal) imposing penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) and U/S 250 (6) respectively being bad in Law may Kindly be quashed and Appeal accepted, and penalty amount deposited may be refunded along with Interest upto date." 4. Brief fact of the case is that all 4 appeals have a common issue related to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and summary of the penalty assessment year-wise is inserted as below : ITA No. A.Y. Penalty Amount 15/Asr/2004 2001-02 Rs.7020/- 16/Asr/2004 2001-02 Rs.6106/- 239/Asr/2004 2001-02 Rs. 7020/- 529/Asr/2004 2002-03 Rs.7350/- The assessee was employee and after the VRS received the salary and exgratiaand declared the amount u/s 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption of Rs. 5 lakhs, the remaining amount was liable to tax and the assessee was not entitled to standard deduction u/s 16(1). Nevertheless, the assessee was under a bonafide impression that since regular salary income was before Rs. 5 lakhs, the assessee was entitled to such deduction. It is also a fact that assessee filed the return without the assistance of advocate or counsel. There is no presumption that everybody knows the law. Therefore, there does not appear to be any malafide intention on the part of assessee for claiming standard deduction u/s 16(1) more so when the full facts in this regard were fully disclosed in the return and statement of income filed along with the return. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
