BHAVIKA V. KANUGO, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI

ITA 5045/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 92701 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PREMANAND J
• Assessee Lawyers: DR K SHIVRAM MS NEELAM JADHAV

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K . BILLAIYA, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER / I .T.A. NO . 5045/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 SMT. BHAVIKA V. KANUGO , 301, TARDEO TOWER, 3 RD FLOOR, TARDEO , MUMBAI 400 034 / VS. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 13, MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ADUPJ 6595J ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: DR. K. SHIVRAM MS. NEELAM JADHAV / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PREMANAND J. / DATE OF HEARING : 0 2 . 0 6 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 2 .0 6 .2015 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 37 , MUMBAI DT. 2 7 .4.2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 0 7 . 2. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ITA. NO. 5045/MUM/2012 2 3. THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 3 DAYS. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE LETTER FOR THE CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE DELAY IS CONDONED. 4. THE SHORT ISSUE IS THAT WHILE SCRUTINIZING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS SHOWN INTEREST O N FIXED DEPOSITS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AND GIVE DETAILS OF FIXED DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE REPLI ED THAT THE INTEREST OF RS. 6000/ - REFLECTED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME HAS BEEN ERRONEOUSLY SHOWN AS THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY BANK ACCOUNT HAVING FIXED DEPOSITS. THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THIS REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATE THE ADDITION O N ACCOUNT OF FIXED DEPOSITS AT RS. 1,00,000/ - . PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE ALSO INITIATED. 4.1. DURING THE COURSE OF THE PENAL PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE ONCE AGAIN CLAIMED THAT THE INTEREST HAS BEEN ERRONEOUSLY SHOWN AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HOLDING ANY FIXED DEPOSITS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND ANY FAVOUR WITH THE AO. THE AO FOUND THAT THE INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME AND ALSO IN THE RETURN FILED U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE AO IF BY MISTAKE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INTEREST INCOME, THEN SHE SHOULD HAVE REVISED/RECTIFIED THE SAID MISTAKE. THE AO WENT ON TO LEVY THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) B UT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ITA. NO. 5045/MUM/2012 3 7. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. AFTER GIVING A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION, WE AGREE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE RECTIFIED THE MISTAKE, IF AT ALL IT WAS A MISTAKE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON FOR INTERFERING WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. OR DER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON 2 ND JUNE , 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( JOGINDER SING H ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 2 ND JUNE , 2015 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI