PUSHPA PRASAD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5486/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4311 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 30-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RADHA K NARANG
• Assessee Lawyers: B K PRASAD

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN , AM AND AMARJIT SINGH , JM ./ I.T.A. NO . 5486 / MUM/20 1 3 ( / ASSESSMENT YEA R : 200 9 - 10 ) MRS.PUSHPA PRA SAD, 21/22 GIRIDARSHA , LBS MARG, MULUND (W), MUMBAI - 400080 / VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 10(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ./PAN. : AALPP55 77A / APPELLANT BY SHRI B K PRASAD / RESPONDENT BY MS.RADHA K NARANG / DATE OF HEARING : 28.12.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 1. 1.2016 / O R D E R P ER B R BASKARAN, AM : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 04 - 04 - 2013 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) - 22, MUMBAI CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.42,167/ - LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009 - 10. 2. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.18.96 LACS, WHERE AS THE GROSS AMOUNT OF INTEREST SHOWN IN THE TDS CERTIFICATES WAS RS.19.96 LAKHS. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1.00 LAKH TO THE INTEREST INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER AO NOTICED THAT THE ITA NO. 5486 / MUM/ 201 3 2 ASSESSEE DID NOT DECLARE THE SB ACCOUNT INTEREST OF RS.24,052/ - IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. HENCE THE AO, AFTER CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSED THE SB ACCOUNT INTEREST ALSO. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR ASSESSMENT OF BOTH THE AMOUNTS CITED ABOVE. THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,24,052/ - AND A CCORDINGLY LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS.42,167/ - U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY LD CIT(A). 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE GROSS AMOUNT OF INTEREST AS SHOWN IN THE TDS CERTIFICATES HAVE BEEN DULY D ECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ITSELF BY HER. HOWEVER, WHILE TOTALING THE INTEREST INCOME, IT WAS UNDER CAST BY RS.1.00 LAKH. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LOWER DECLARATION OF INTEREST INCOME WAS DUE TO CASTING ERROR ONLY AND THERE IS NO CONCE ALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WITH REGARD TO THE OMISSION TO DECLARE S.B INTEREST INCOME, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED THERE FROM. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SB INTEREST INCOME HAS ESCAPED THE ATTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DISCLOSED THE RELEVANT BANK ACCOUNT AND THE AO HAS DEDUCED THE SB INTEREST INCOME FROM THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS AN INADVERTENT OMISSION. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD D.R STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES. 5. HAVING HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS SOME MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DISCLOSED ALL ITA NO. 5486 / MUM/ 201 3 3 INTEREST INCOME AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATES AND WHILE TOTALING UP THE INTEREST INCOME, IT WAS UNDER CAST BY RS.1.00 LAKH. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, IT WAS A CASE OF A CLERICAL ERROR. IN RESPECT OF S.B ACCOUNT INTEREST, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNT AND SINCE SHE DID NOT MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE SB INTEREST HAS ESCAPED HER ATTENTION. THUS THERE IS MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE. THUS, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED AN EXPLANATION AND THE SAME WAS NOT FOUND TO BE FALSE. FURTHER, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HER INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) AND DIRECT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 1ST JAN,2016 . 1 ST JAN, 2016 SD SD ( AMARJIT SINGH ) ( B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 1 ST JAN , 2015 . . . ./ SRL , SR. PS ITA NO. 5486 / MUM/ 201 3 4 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI