PADMAJA GIRISH MEHTA, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 21(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5919/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 88412 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEIL PHILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: R S SHAH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Bonafide mistake

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5919/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) PADMAJA GIRISH MEHTA, FLAT NO.602, 6 TH FLOOR, SHRADDHA SUMAN, 6 TH ROAD, JVPD, VILE PARLE (WEST), MUMBAI 400 056 PAN:AADPM 3941P (APPELLANT ) VS. THE ACIT-21(1), BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA, MUMBAI 400 050 (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.S.SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NE IL PHILIP DATE OF HEARING : 18/02/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 /02/2015 ORDER PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-32, MUMBAI DATED 19/08/2013 FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2009-10. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: BEING AGGRIEVED AGAINST ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 32 MUMBAI THIS APPEAL PETITION IS BEING FILED TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH ARE INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A)ERRED CONFIRMING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF RS 29.383/- ITA NO.5919/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) 2 THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD FULLY EXPLAINED THE THAT T HE APPELLANT WAS NOT AWARE OF THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.86,446/- SINCE NO DETA ILS WERE PROVIDED BY THE BANK. THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED MECHANICALLY AND WITHO UT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS OF THE CAS E 2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A)ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND NOT APPRECIATING THE REASONABLE CAUSE AND WITHOUT APPRE CIATING FULL FACTS OF THE CASE 3) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, IT MAY BE STATED THA T ALL MATERIAL FACTS WERE TRULY AND FULLY DISCLOSED AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO NON-DISCLOSURE OR UNTRUE DISCLOSURE OF THE FACTS. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED A RETURNED INCOME OF R S.2,49,95,330/-, WHICH HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT RS.2,51,09,360/-. THE IMPUGNED P ENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON AN ADDITION OF RS.86,446/-, WHICH REPRESENT INTERE ST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ONE FDR OF WHICH TDS ALSO WAS DEDUCTED. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DUE TO OMISSION, THE SAID INCOME WAS NOT RETURNED AND SIMI LARLY TDS AMOUNTING TO RS.7990/- WAS ALSO NOT CLAIMED. THUS, IT IS THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS AN INADVERTENT BONAFIDE MISTAKE WHICH DOES NOT CALL F OR LEVY OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY. HOWEVER, AO HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY AND LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED, HENCE, HAS FILED AFOREMENTIO NED GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT APPEARS TO BE A SHEER CASE OF INADVERTENT MISTAKE, KEEPING IN V IEW THE RETUNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE MISTAKE IS INADVERTENT IN VIEW OF T HE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT CLAIMING TDS RELATING TO THE SAID INTEREST. MOREO VER, THE INTEREST IS RECEIVED FROM THE BANK ON WHICH TDS IS RECEIVED AND THE SAME CAN BE DETECTED BY THE REVENUE AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS A CASE OF INADVERTENT MISTAKE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE SHOUL D NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR ITA NO.5919/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3 CONCEALMENT PENALTY. THE SAME IS DELETED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 8/02/2015 ! ' #$% & '() 18/02/2015 $ ' * + SD/- SD/- ( /CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( . . / I.P. BANSAL ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL EMBER MUMBAI; '( DATED 18/02/2015 ! ! ! ! ' '' ' ,-. ,-. ,-. ,-. /.%- /.%- /.%- /.%- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 01 / THE APPELLANT 2. ,201 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 3 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 3 / CIT 5. .4* ,-( , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. *5 6 / GUARD FILE. !( !( !( !( / BY ORDER, 2.- ,- //TRUE COPY// 7 77 7 / 8 8 8 8 (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI . ( . ./ VM , SR. PS