SAUMYA JAIN, NOIDA V. ITO, WARD- 58(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 7663/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5762 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA NEB
• Assessee Lawyers: K P GARG
• Keywords: Salary income; Bonafide mistake

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.-7663/DEL/2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) SAUMYA JAIN , D/O SH. V.K. JAIN, H.NO. B-312, SECTOR-122, NOIDA, GB NAGAR, UP- 201301 AHFPJ0336A VS ITO WARD 58(3) NEW DELHI ASSESSEE BY SH. K.P. GARG , CA REVENUE BY MS. ASHIMA NEB, SR. DR ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASS AILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DT. 23.10.2017 OF CIT(A)-19, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2014-15 AY, WHEREIN THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)( C) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS ASSAILED ON V ARIOUS GROUNDS INCLUDING GROUND NO. C WHICH READS AS UNDER: C) THAT I AM A REGULAR ASSESSEE SINCE LAST MORE T HAN 8 YEARS AND DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 I HAVE FILED MY REVISE3D IN COME TAX RETURN HAVING INCOME ONLY UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM SALARY AND INCOME FROM INTEREST. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE E LECTRONICALLY FILED HER RETURN. AS PER RECORD IT WAS FILED VIDE ACKNOWLED GMENT NUMBER 210581000040714 ON 04.07.2014. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE RETURN WAS FILED BY A TAX CONSULTANT WHO INADVE RTENTLY DID NOT FILL THE DATA OF INCOME FROM SEVERAL SOURCES. AS SOON AS T HIS FACT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, THE ASSESSEE REVISED ITS INCOME. ON ACCOUNT OF THESE FACTS, PENALTY PROCEED INGS U/S 271(1)(C) WERE INITIATED. THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS B EFORE THE AO IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO R EFUND WAS RECEIVED AND AS SOON AS THE MISTAKE WAS POINTED IN THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE PROMPTLY REVISED THE COMPUTA TION OF INCOME. HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED, PENALTY @ 150% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED WAS LEVIED. IN APPEAL THE SAID ORDER WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 3. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. DATE OF HEARING 24 .04.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27.06. 2018 ITA NO. 7663/DEL/2017 PAGE 2 OF 3 2 4. THE LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF THE DIGITAL RETURN FILED SUBMITTED THAT INCOME FROM SALARY AND GROSS TOTAL INCOME WERE SHOWN AS BLANK BY THE NOVICE TAX CONSULTANT, HOWEVER, IN COLUMN NO. 26 IN SCHEDULE 1 OF TDS OF THE SAID DIGITAL RETURN, IT CAN BE SEE N THAT THE ASSESSEES SALARY FROM SHELL INDIA MARKETS P. LTD. AMOUNTIN G TO RS. 26,28,221/- IS SHOWN ON WHICH TDS OF 6,37,020/- HAS BEEN PAID. THUS, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THERE CAN BE NOR THERE WAS ANY OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO HIDE THE INFORMATION ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS BEEN A SALARIED EMPLOYEE FOR THE LAST MORE THAN 10 YEARS AND EVEN IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, SHE HAS RECEIVED A SALARY OF RS. 20,58,151/- FROM THE VERY SAME EMPLOYER. THIS FACT, IT WAS SUBMITTED, IS EVIDENT FROM COPY OF THE DIGITAL RETURN FILED SHOWING THAT TDS WAS DEDUCTED AS PER COLUMN NO. 23 AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,29,968/ -, THUS, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A REGULAR ASSESS EE REGULARLY FILING HER INCOME FROM THE VERY SAME SOURCE OF INCOME DISCLOS ING CORRECTLY HER INCOME RECEIVED FROM SALARY FROM THE VERY SAME EMPLOYER AND THE MISTAKE PRESUMABLY BY THE TAX CONSULTANT HAS RESULTED IN THIS CONFUSION WHICH WAS PROMPTLY ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSE E. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C ) IT WAS S UBMITTED MAY BE QUASHED. 5. THE LD. SR. DR RELIES UPON THE ORDER. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS RETURNED INCOME FROM THE VERY SAME SO URCE I.E. SHELL INDIA MARKETS P. LTD. AS IN THE EARLIER YEARS. WHEN THE R ETURNED INCOME OF THE YEAR IS COMPARED TO THE RETURNED INCOME FROM THE VERY SAME SOURCE WITH THE INCOME RETURNED IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECED ING ASSESSMENT YEAR, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN INCREASE OF APPR OXIMATELY 6 LAKH. IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AS PER RECORD, IT WAS RS. 20,58,000/- ODD WHICH IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS INCREASED TO 26,28,000/- ODD . IN THESE PECULIAR FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I FIND NO GOOD REASON TO DISBELIEVE THE CON SISTENT CLAIM OF BONAFIDE MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE TAX CONSULTANT. SUPP ORT IS ALSO DRAWN FROM THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPERS P. LTD. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW T HAT THE ITA NO. 7663/DEL/2017 PAGE 3 OF 3 3 ASSESSEE IS A HABITUAL DEFAULTER AND THIS POINT WAS SPECIFIC ALLY REQUIRED TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE LD. AR. THE LD. AR ON QUERY H AS MADE A STATEMENT AT BAR THAT AT NO POINT OF TIME THE ASSESSE E HAS EVER BEEN PENALIZED FOR NOT PLACING CORRECT AND TRUE FACTS ON RECO RD. THE DECISION ACCORDINGLY, IS TAKEN CONSIDERING THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE, HER CONDUCT AND THE PECULIAR FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PR ESENT CASE NOTING THAT THE INCOME FROM THE VERY SAME SOURCE IS BEIN G CONSISTENTLY RETURNED OVER THE YEARS AND SINCE TDS IS BEING DEDUCTE D PERIODICALLY THEREON, THE INFORMATION WAS ALWAYS AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC D OMAIN. THE INADVERTENT MISTAKE IN THE DIGITAL FILING OF RETURN ACCORDINGL Y IN THESE FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED DOES NOT ATT RACT THE PENAL PROCEEDINGS. THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS DIRECTED TO BE QUASHED. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN CO URT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.06.2018. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *KAVITA ARORA/POONAM(CHD) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI