Manikyam Guruvula , Siddipet V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Siddipet

ITA 241/Hyd/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1648 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARAYANA MURTHY NAIK
• Keywords: Salary income; Revised return; TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 271(1)(c); 80C; 250; 143(2); 192

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES SMC, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 241/HYD/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 MANIKYAM GURUVULA, SIDDIPET [PAN: AAXPG1254D] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SIDDIPET (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : NONE FOR REVENUE : SHRI NARAYANAMURTHY NAIK, DR DATE OF HEARING : 28-01-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16-02-2021 O R D E R THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY.2016-17 ARISES FROM TH E CIT(A)-7, HYDERABADS 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 A CT]. CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARED AT ASSESSEES BEH EST. 2. COMING TO THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN IMPOSING SECTION 271(1)(C) PENALTY OF RS.1,61,472/- . 3. MR.NAIK INVITED MY ATTENTION TO THE CIT(A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION READING AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO. 241/HYD/2020 :- 2 -: 5. ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AGAINST LEVYING OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF APPE LLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS: 'IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE A PENALTY VIS. 271(1)(C) O F RS.1,61,472/- ON THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.6,87,129/- WHICH INCLUDE S ALARY INCOME OF RS.5,97,679 AND DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80DD OF RS. 8 9,450/-. EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO SALARY INCOMERS. 5,97,67 9: > THE ASSESSEE, SHRI MANIKYAM GURUVULA WHO IS IN GM R POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE HAS FILED HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASST YEAR 2016-17 ADMITTING A TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.10,78,180/ - ON 13.07.2015. > ASSESSEE'S AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FILED A REVI SED RETURN OF INCOME ON 15/03/2018 TO CORRECT THE DEDUCTIONS CLAI MED U/S. 24(B) AND U/S 80C WHICH IS NOT IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AS SESSEE. > WHILE FILING THE REVISED. RETURN, IT HAS BEEN INA DVERTENTLY FILED THE INCOME FROM SALARY AS 8,45,750/- AND CLAIMED A REFU ND OF RS. 1,25,860/- WHICH IS ONLY A MISTAKE, WHILE REVISING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY. > LATER THE CASE IS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CAS S FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 14.8.2018 ISSUED AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY TAKING I NTO ACCOUNT THE ACTUAL' SALARY RECEIVED WHICH WAS REPORTED IN ORIGI NAL RETURN. > 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. > WHILE COMPLETING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE TDS OF RS. 1,52,908/- WAS DEDUCTE D ON SALARY INCOME OF RS. 13,35,589/- AND THE SAME IS REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS, WHICH IS IN THE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEPARTMENT AN D WHICH DOES NOT AMOUNT TO NEITHER CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR FURNISH ING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE WORD 'CONCEAL MEANS 'NOT ALLOW TO BE SEEN, HIDE, PREVENT (SOMETHING) FROM BEING KN OWN, KEEP SECRET.' > AS TD5 ON THE ABOVE SAID INCOME IS ALREADY BEEN D EDUCTED AND REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS, KINDLY DELETE THE PENALTY O N THE INCOME EARNED FROM SALARY. EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION U/S.80DD RS.89 ,450/-: > WHILE FILING THE REVISED RETURN, THE ASSESSEE WRO NGLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80DD WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS ACTUALLY HAVING DEDUCTION U/S.80D FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 15,000/-. ITA NO. 241/HYD/2020 :- 3 -: > DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S.80DFOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.15,000/- P AID FOR MEDICAL INSURANCE WITH LIC. > THE CLAIM OF RS.89,450/- U/S.80DD IS AN ERRONEOUS ONE AND NOT INTENTIONAL. > HENCE, KINDLY DELETE THE PENALTY ON THE ABOVE AMO UNT OF RS. 89,450/-.' 5.1. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT FILED FURTHER SUBMISSI ONS AND THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: '> THE ASSESSEE, SHRI MANIKYAM GURUVULA WHO IS WORK ING IN GMR POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE HAS FILED HIS ORIGINAL RETURN O F INCOME FOR THE ASST YEAR 2016-17 ADMITTING A TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 10,78,180/- ON 13.07.2016. ASSESSEE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE TILED A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 15/03/2018 TO CORRECT THE DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED U/S 24(B) END U/S. 80C WHICH IS NOT IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE. > WHILE FILING THE REVISED RETURN, IT HAS BEEN INAD VERTENTLY FILED THE INCOME FROM SALARY AS 8,45,750/- AND CLAIMED A REFU ND OF RS. 1,25,860/- WHICH IS ONLY A MISTAKE WHILE REVISING T HE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY. > LATER THE CASE IS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CAS S FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 14.8.2018 ISSUED AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY TAKING I NTO ACCOUNT THE ACTUAL SALARY RECEIVED WHICH WAS REPORTED IN ORIGIN AL RETURN > DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE RE QUESTED 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 BEF ORE 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 RS. 1,61,472/- IS LEVIE D ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS > DIFFERENCE IN SALARY REPORTED IN ORIGINAL RETURN AND REVISED RETURN RS. 5,97,679 ITA NO. 241/HYD/2020 :- 4 -: > WHILE COMPLETING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE TDS OF RS.1,52,908/- WAS DEDUCTED ON SALARY INCOME OF RS.13,35,589/- AND THE SAME IS REFLECTED IN FORM-26AS, WHICH IS IN THE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEPARTMENT AN D WHICH DOES NOT AMOUNT TO NEITHER CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR FURNISH ING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. > AS PER SECTION 192 TDS SHALL BE DEDUCTED AT THE R ATES APPLICABLE TO INDIVIDUAL BASED ON THE INCOME BUT NOT ADHOC PERCEN TAGE. ALSO THERE IS NO SCOPE TO ANY SETOFFS OTHER THAN LOSS FROM HOU SE PROPERTY. SO ASSESSEE IS OBLIGED TO REPORT THE INCOME SHOWN IN F ORM 26AS AS SALARY AND PAY THE TAXES ACCORDINGLY. > AS TDS ON THE ABOVE SAID INCOME IS ALREADY BEEN D EDUCTED AND REFLECTED IN FORM-26ASF MERE WRONG MISTAKE IN REVIS ED RETURN REPORTING DOES NOT AMOUNT TO NEITHER CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. > AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN DIFFERENT LINE ITEMS OF REVI SED RETURN IS ONLY A MISTAKE BUT NOT AN INTENTIONAL ONE TO CONCEAL THE I NCOME. > THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME AT THE TIME OF FI LING ORIGINAL RETURN, REVISED RETURN AND DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S IS PRODUCED HEREWITH FOR OUR REFERENCE: FORM 16 INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 144342 1443429 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 RE TURN OF INCOME WERE SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. > THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN UNDE R THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING ITA NO. 241/HYD/2020 :- 5 -: CALCULATION OF HOUSE PROPERTY LOSS: MONTH EMI INTEREST PRINCIPAL APR-15 28000 21114 6886 MAY-15 28000 21439 6561 JUN-15 28000 20693 7307 JUL-15 28000 21211 6789 AUG-15 28000 21051 6949 SEPT-15 28000 20315 7685 OCT-15 28000 20601 7399 NOV-15 28000 15786 8214 DEC-15 28000 20377 7623 JAN-16 28000 20314 7686 FEB-16 28000 18944 9055 MAR-16 28000 20175 7825 TOTAL 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 TH E 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 DEDUCTI ONS WERE REPORTED WRONGLY IN THE REVISED RETURN. DUE TO WHICH THE ASS ESSEE HAS LOST THE ACTUAL ELIGIBLE DEDUCTIONS THROUGH THE REVISED RET URN. IT SHOWS THERE IS NO MALAFIED INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONCEAL THE INCOME. > AS THE ACTUAL SALARY HAS ALREADY BEEN REPORTED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME (WHICH IS REPORTED TO THE DEPARTME NT THROUGH 26AS) IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE INCOME HAS BEEN CONCEALED A ND PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. > HENCE, KINDLY DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED. 5.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED IN THE ORDER OF THE PENALT Y THAT THE APPELLANT, DELIBERATELY FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WHICH I S NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FORM NO.16 ISSUED BY EMPLOYER VIZ. PRINCIP AL, GMR PLOY ITA NO. 241/HYD/2020 :- 6 -: TECHNIC, GAJWEL, MEDAK DIST. AND ERRONEOUSLY CLAIME D DEDUCTION U/S. 80DD OF THE IT ACT THEREBY THE APPELLANT FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE CONTENTION OF THE AR OF THE APPELLANT WAS THAT THE REVISED RETURN FILED WAS A MISTAKE OCCURRE D INADVERTENTLY. THE SECOND CONTENTION OF THE AR OF THE APPELLANT WA S THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS ALREADY IN POSSESSION OF THE FORM NO . 26AS, HENCE THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT. BOTH CLAIMS MADE BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT DEL IBERATELY FILED REVISED RETURN BY CLAIMING THE REFUND EVEN THOUGH T HE APPELLANT WAS IN FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE SALARY INCOME EARNED AND R EFLECTED IN THE SALARY CERTIFICATE FURNISHED. ON FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE, AS ARGUED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT, THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIM ED LESSER DEDUCTION OF RS. 50,000/- UNDER HEAD INCOME FROM HO USE PROPERTY, RS. 50,000/- U/S. 80C AND RS. 15,000/- UNDER SECTIO N 80D OF THE IT ACT WHILE FILING THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AS AG AINST THE CLAIM OF SIMILAR DEDUCTIONS IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME . HENCE/ THE INCOME SOUGHT TO BE EVADED REQUIRES TO BE REDUCED BY RS. 1 ,15,000/- (50,000 + 50,000 + 15,000/-). THE CONTENTION OF THE AR OF T HE APPELLANT THAT THE APPELLANT INADVERTENTLY FILED SALARY INCOME OF RS. 8,45,750/- IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AS AGAINST ACTUAL INCO ME UNDER THE HEAD SALARY OF RS. 14,43,429/-' IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ACTUALLY CLAIMED REFUND WHILE FILING THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME CLAIMING LESSER INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SAL ARY AND ALSO CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 89,450/- U/S. 80DD WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE WHICH SHOWS THAT SUCH CLAIMS WERE DELIBERATE IN ORD ER TO CLAIM INELIGIBLE REFUND. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE APPE LLANT THAT MISTAKES WERE INADVERTENT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. HOWEVER, THE C ONCEALED INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE REDUCED BY RS.1,15,000/- WHILE COMPU TING THE PENALTY. HENCE THE CONCEALED INCOME WORKS OUT TO RS. 4,62,87 1/-(6,87,129 - 1,15,000). HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE THE PENALTY LEVIABLE ON THE CONCEALED INCOME OF RS. 4,6 2,871/-. 4. IT IS SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR IN VIEW OF THE CIT(A)S D ETAILED DISCUSSION THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE REAS ON BEHIND THE REVISED RETURN HAVING REDUCED THE SALARY I NCOME FROM RS.14,43,429/- IN ORIGINAL RETURN TO RS.8,45,750 /- ONLY; AND THAT TOO, AFTER DUE VERIFICATION THEREOF. THIS HAS FO RMED THE PRECISE REASON FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) TO HOLD THE SAME AS AN INSTANCE OF FURNISHING OF INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. I EXPRESS MY COMPLETE AGREEMEN T WITH ITA NO. 241/HYD/2020 :- 7 -: THE CIT(A)S ABOVE EXTRACTED FINDINGS CONFIRMING IMPUG NED PENALTY. ASSESSEES SUBSTANTIVE GROUND FAILS. 5. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH FEBRUARY, 2021 SD/- ( S.S.GODARA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 16-02-2021 TNMM ITA NO. 241/HYD/2020 :- 8 -: COPY TO : 1.MANIKYAM GURUVULA, H.NO.4-17-28/1, MAITRIVANAM, SIDDIPET. 2.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SIDDIPET. 3.CIT(APPEALS)-7, HYDERABAD. 4.PR.CIT-7, HYDERABAD. 5.D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6.GUARD FILE.