IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1802/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 KIRAN DEVI, F-1U/112, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAKPD2954J VS. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-14(3), NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T.R. TALWAR, CA DEPTT. BY : SHRI UMESH CHAND DUBEY, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 26.04.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.04.2017 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 06.12.2013 UPHOLDING THE PE NALTY OF RS.1,75,900/- IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED `TH E ACT) IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NO.1802/DEL/2014 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.11,78,807 /-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICE D BY THE AO FROM THE DETAILS OF RENTAL INCOME FILED BY THE A SSESSEE THAT RENT @ 57,500/- PER MONTH FROM SHOP NO.13, SECTOR 2 8, NOIDA WAS SHOWN FOR ONLY ONE QUARTER. ON QUERY, AS TO WH Y THE REMAINING RENT WAS NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION, THE AS SESSEE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME ADDING RENT FOR THE R EMAINING THREE QUARTERS AMOUNTING TO RS.5,17,500/-. THE ASS ESSMENT WAS, ACCORDINGLY, COMPLETED. THEREAFTER, PENALTY W AS IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) WITH REFERENCE TO THE AMOUNT OF RENT NOT ORIGINALLY OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THE LD. CIT(A) CON FIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSE SSEE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED RETURN DECLARING RENTAL INCOME FOR FIRST QUARTER. SUCH RE NTAL INCOME ITA NO.1802/DEL/2014 3 WAS OFFERED ON THE BASIS OF FORM NO.26AS WHICH DEPI CTED RENTAL INCOME FILED FOR THESE THREE MONTHS. THE RE ASON FOR NOT SHOWING THE REMAINING RENTAL INCOME FOR NINE MONTHS WAS THAT THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT ATTACHED RENTAL INCOME AN D, ON THE BASIS OF THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, SUCH AMOUNT WAS DIRECTLY OBTAINED FROM THE ASSESSEES BA NK ACCOUNT AS ADJUSTMENT OF OUTSTANDING TAX. SUCH AMOUNT WAS A LSO NOT BEING REFLECTED IN FORM NO.26AS AS THE AMOUNT WAS D IRECTLY RECOVERED BY THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT. RENTAL INCO ME WAS INCLUDED IN THE RETURN ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE PORTAL IN FORM NO. 26AS. NEITHER THE RENTAL INC OME FOR THE REMAINING NINE MONTHS NOR THE BENEFIT OF TDS THEREO N WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE INTO CONSIDERATION. THESE FA CTS INDICATE THAT THERE WAS A BONA FIDE MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT INITIALLY INCLUDING THE RENTAL INCOME FOR RE MAINING NINE MONTHS IN HER RETURN OF INCOME BECAUSE AS SOON AS T HIS FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHE SWIF TLY REVISED THE RETURN OFFERING THE REMAINING AMOUNT FOR TAXATI ON. IN OUR ITA NO.1802/DEL/2014 4 CONSIDERED OPINION, IT WAS A HUMAN ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), HAS HELD THAT NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CAN BE IMPOSED FOR A BONA FID E MISTAKE OR A NORMAL HUMAN ERROR. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E RATIO DECIDENDI FLOWING OUT OF THIS PRECEDENT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO PENALTY IS SUSTAINABLE I N THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WE, THEREFORE, ORDER TO DELETE T HE PENALTY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.04.2017. SD/- SD/- [SUCHITRA KAMBLE] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED, 28 TH APRIL, 2017. DK ITA NO.1802/DEL/2014 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR/NEW DELHI.