Ms. Gayathri Venugopalan, Gurgaon V. ITO, Gurgaon

ITA 5279/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87089 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: KHURSHID ALAM

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JM ITA NO.5279/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 GAYATHRI VENOGOPALAN, D-113, THE ICON, DLF CITY, PHASE-V, GURGAON. PAN: AFUPG0685G VS. ITO, WARD 1(2), GURGAON. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KHURSHID ALAM, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI T. VASANTHAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.03.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 .03.2015 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 8.7.13 UPHOLDING THE PENALTY OF RS.78 ,612/- IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (H EREINAFTER ALSO CALLED THE ACT) IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2008-09. ITA NO.5279/DEL/2013. 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.2.86LAC. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT ACTUAL RENT RECEI VED CAME TO RS.1.29 LAC FROM BENOY ANTONY, WHEREAS, IN THE RETURN, RENT RECEIPT WAS SHOWN AT RS.1,27,000/-. THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO THIS MIST AKE. THE AO MADE NET ADDITION OF RS.1,400/-, AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/ S 24(A) @ 30%. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AS PER HOUSING LOAN CERTIF ICATE DATED 30.11.10 ISSUED BY ICICI BANK, LOAN OF PURCHASE/CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE PROPERTY WAS SHOWN AT RS.2,04,179/-, WHEREAS, IN THE RETURN, INTEREST WAS CLAIMED FOR RS.5,29,440/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.3,25,261/- (RS.5,29,440-R S.2,04,179) SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED FROM THE INTEREST CLAIMED AGAINST THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK FOR L OAN WAS TRANSFERRED FROM ICICI BANK TO STATE BANK OF INDIA AS PER CERTI FICATE ISSUED BY THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND FURTHER INTEREST OF RS.72,2 52/- SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR THE PERIOD FROM 15.12.07 TO 31.3.08. THE ASSES SEE AGREED FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF INTEREST AT RS.2,53,009/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED. THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY U/ S 271(1)(C) WITH ITA NO.5279/DEL/2013. 3 REFERENCE TO THESE TWO DISALLOWANCES, NAMELY, ADDIT ION OF HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME OF RS.1,400/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST A T RS.2,53,009/-. THE LD.CIT(A) AFFIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO AT RS.78,612/-. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN SO FAR AS THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF INTEREST TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,53,009/- IS CONCERNED, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT DURING THE YEAR THE LOAN ACCOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED FROM ICICI BANK TO STA TE BANK OF INDIA. BY MISTAKE, THE TRANSFER BALANCE OF RS.5,29,440/- W AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INTEREST INSTEAD OF A LOWER AMOUNT WHIC H WAS RIGHTLY DEDUCTIBLE. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION ABOUT THE ADDI TIONAL INCOME OF RS.1,400/- ARISING UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUS E PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE TOTALED UP THE CREDITS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT TOWARDS INTEREST AND FOUND OUT THE SAME AT RS.1,27,000/-, WHEREAS THE AC TUAL AMOUNT WAS RS.1.29 LAC. HERE IS A CASE OF A BONA FIDE MISTAKE S COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE N ATURE OF MISTAKES POINTED OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AMPLY SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONCEAL INCOME OR FURN ISH INACCURATE ITA NO.5279/DEL/2013. 4 PARTICULARS OF INCOME. DUE TO INADVERTENCE, THESE MISTAKES CREPT IN AT THE TIME OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. BY NO STA NDARD SUCH INADVERTENT MISTAKES CALL FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY U/S 2 71(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICEWATER 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 FIDE MISTAKE OR A NORMAL HUMAN ERROR. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOMANY EVERGREE KNITS LTD. ( 2013) 352 ITR 592 (BOM). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE PRECEDENTS , WE ORDER FOR THE DELETION OF PENALTY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.03.201 5. SD/- SD/- [C.M. GARG] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 18 TH MARCH, 2015. DK ITA NO.5279/DEL/2013. 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.