BISHWA NATH GANGULI,DHANBAD V. ITO WARD 1(2), DHANBAD

ITA 99/RAN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Bishwa Nath Ganguli, an employee of BCCL Bhowra Colliery, who appealed against the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 1(2), Dhanbad, for alleged inaccuracies in his income tax return for the Assessment Year 2015-16. Initially, Ganguli declared a total income of \\u20b9 2,65,920 in his return, while his Form-16 reflected an income of \\u20b9 6,38,080, leading to a discrepancy of \\u20b9 3,72,160. The ITO assessed his income at \\u20b9 6,38,000 and imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A) upheld this penalty, prompting Ganguli to appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the authorities failed to establish the mens rea (criminal intent) required for imposing the penalty, leading to the allowance of Ganguli's appeal and the deletion of the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 33905 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Salary income
• Section: 147; 148; 250; 271(1)(c); 139

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 99/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year:2015-16) Bishwa Nath Ganguli, S/o- B.B. Ganguly, Nagina Bazar,Mahulbani, Kanchanpur, Bhowra, Dhanbad-828302 (Jharkhand) PAN No. ADSPG 9122 C Vs. I.T.O., Ward 1(2), Dhanbad. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Jitendra Kumar Singh, CA Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 09/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 18/02/2025 O R D E R PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 14/03/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an employee of BCCL Bhowra Colliery, derives income from salary. Return of income was filed by the assessee on 12/08/2015 and declared total income at ₹ 2,65,920/- and claimed a refund of ₹ 54,190/-. Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was issued to the assessee on 16/01/2019 after taking prior approval of the JCIT, Range-1, Dhanbad on the ground that the assessee had shown total income at ₹ 2,65,920/- whereas the total income reflected in Form- 16 issued by the employer was at ₹ 6,38,080/-. Thus, there was a difference of ITA No. 99/Ran/2023 Bishwa Nath Ganguli Vs ITO 2 ₹ 3,72,160/- which has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessing Officer after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, finally assessed the income at ₹ 6,38,000/- and also initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. During the penalty proceedings, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of ₹ 54,194/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer vide the impugned order on the ground that the assessee has failed to give reasonable explanation that why he had filed inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the present appeal has been filed before us. 5. We have heard the submissions of learned Authorised Representative of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr.DR) for the revenue. It is found that though there was a difference between two incomes shown initially i.e. (i) return filed under Section 139 and another under Section 147 of the Act, however, neither the Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(A) have brought on record to justify the imposition of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for filing inaccurate particulars of income as under the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act it was the responsibility of Assessing Officer to bring out evidence on record to justify the imposition of penalty but in the present case that has not been done. The ITA No. 99/Ran/2023 Bishwa Nath Ganguli Vs ITO 3 imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic, it has to be established by showing that the assessee has deliberately and willfully furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case, the mens rea of the assessee has not been proved while passing order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer and again during the appellate proceedings under Section 250 of the Act. Hence, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer is deleted. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order announced in open court on 18th February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 18/02/2025 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi "