USHA NARHARI HADEKAR, MUMBAI V. ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7598/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9166 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PAWAN KU MAR BEERLA
• Assessee Lawyers: KEYURI DOSHI
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - F BENCH , , BEFORE S/SH. I P BANSAL,JUDICIAL ME MBER & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO.7598/MUM/2012, ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 KAM ALAKAR NARHARI HADKER LEGAL HAIR OF LATE SMT. USHA NARHARI HADKER,KIRAN,27THROAD, BANDRA(W), MUMBAI-400050 PAN: AAAPH2558L VS ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI-20 ( #$ / ASSESSEE) ( %&#$ / RESPONDENT) !'( !'( !'( !'( ) ) ) ) /ASSESSEE BY :SHRI KEYURI DOSHI * ) / REVENUE BY :SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BEERLA ! ! ! ! * ** * (+ (+ (+ (+ / DATE OF HEARING : 25 - 03 -2015 ,-' * (+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 -03-2015 ! ! ! ! , 1961 * ** * 254(1) (.( (.( (.( (.( / / / / ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, A.M. ! : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT.05.09.2012 OF THE CIT(A)-3 0,MUMBAI, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT( APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE P ENALTY OF RS. 30,973/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT LEVIED BY THE A.O. THE SAME MAY PLEA SE BE DELETED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, SUPPLEMEN T, ALTER AND/OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. BRIEF FACTS 2. ON PERUSAL OF AIR INFORMATION,THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,55,276/-. HOWE VER, AS PER THE RETURN THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON FD SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 2.84 L AKHS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO RECONCILE THE INTEREST RECEIVED AS PER THE AIR INFORMATION AND INTEREST SHOWN BY HER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT BY MISTAKE SHE HAD SHOWN LOW INTEREST INCOME, THAT THE MISTAKE HAD ARISEN DUE TO ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN EXCEL SHEET WHILE GIVING T HE FORMULA FOR TOTAL INTEREST AND THE ACTUAL INTEREST RECEIVED ON FD.HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT ACC EPT THE AFORESAID REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 91,214/- (RS. 3,76,403- RS. 284,829) HE ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 271(1)(C) R.W.EXPLANTION 1 FOR FURNI SHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE DID NO T APPEAR. THE AO LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 30973/-. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA). AFTER CONSIDERING THE SU BMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THE FAA HELD THAT THERE WAS UNDER ASSESSMENT OF RS. 91,214/-, TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT THE MISTAKE OCCURRED BECAUSE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH MS EX CEL,THAT ASSESSEE CAME OUT WITH THE EXPLANATION ONLY AFTER THE AO HAD DETECTED THE UNDE RSTATEMENT,THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY. 4. BEFORE US,THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMIT TED THAT THE LATE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DELI -BERATELY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME,THAT SHE HAD PAID TAXES,THAT IT WAS A BONAFIDE AND INADVERTENT MISTAKE BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT AO HAD NOT REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE 2 ITA NO. 7598/MUM/2012 KAMALAKAR NARHARI HADKER ASSESEE THAT THE MISTAKE OCCURRED DUE TO ERROR IN E XCEL WORKING IN THE COMPUTER.HE RELIED UPON THE CASES OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD . V. CIT(CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6924 2012( (SC),SOMANY EVERAGREE KNITS LTD. [20013] 35 TAXMANN . COM 529(BOMBAY HIGH COURT), JANUS INVESTMENT FUND V.DDIT (ITA 6975/MUM/2010) (M UMBAI TRIBUNAL),SKYLINE AUTO PRODUCTS (P) LTD[2005]142TAXMAN558(MADRAS HIGH COUR T), SHAHABAD CO-OP SUGAR MILLS [2010] 129 TTJ 92 (CHD TRIB) (UO),SARV PRAKASH KAPO OR (ITA 95 OF 2012)(ITAT AGRA),DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA AND RELIED UPON THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA TEXTILE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE REASON OF DIFFERENCE BET WEEN THE INTEREST INCOME SHOWN BY HER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE INTEREST INCOME AS REP ORTED IN THE AIR. IN OUR OPINION, AN ADDITION IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS SHOULD NOT RESULT I N AUTOMATIC LEVY OF PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT. IN OUR OPINION,THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS.THE PAYMENT OF TAXES BY THE ASSESSEE A ND THE SMALLNESS OF TAX EFFECT ARE OTHER SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR US TO TAKE THE FINAL DECISION.WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS A CASE OF BONAFIDE AND INADVERTENT MISTAKE.CASES RELI ED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAVOUR THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE.THEREFORE,REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE FAA,WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS AL LOWED. (1 !'( 2 3 * . 4 * ( 56 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25TH,MARCH,2 015. / * ,-' 7 8! 25 9 ,2015 - * . : SD/- SD/- ( /I P BANSAL) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 8! /DATE: 25.03.2015 SK / / / / * ** * %(; %(; %(; %(; <;'( <;'( <;'( <;'( / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / #$ 2. RESPONDENT / %&#$ 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ = > , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / = > 5. DR F BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / ;?. %(! , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ . &;( %( //TRUE COPY// /! / BY ORDER, @ / 5 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.