The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) comprising Shri Prashant Maharishi, AM and M S Kavitha Rajagopal, JM has held that the wrong claim of TDS would not amount to the Penalty u/s 271 of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The assessee engaged in the business of plastic products. He filed a return of income at a total income of Rs.1,22,83,260/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has not shown the total interest of Rs.2,97,122/- The assessee submitted that these incomes are credited to the assessee’s account, which belongs to Jolly Containers, where the assessee is a partner and the same was chargeable to tax. The AO made an addition of Rs.2,97,122/-. Stated that the income was credited in the name of the assessee and corresponding TDS also claimed and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act were initiated separately for ‘concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’.
The assessee contended that the sole proprietorship business of the assessee was converted into a partnership firm and the fixed deposit & other deposits appeared in the books of the partnership. The credit of TDS was taken by the individual assessee whereas the interest income was offered in the hands of the partnership firm.
It was stated in the assessment order that the penalty was initiated for twin charges and ultimately, levied for ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars’ It was observed that the Assessing Officer was not sure whether the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars or had concealed the income. In light of the case of SSA’S Emerald Meadows (supra), the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) was not correct in upholding the penalty and further viewed that the income has already been offered in the hands of a partnership firm which has already been taxed when the order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed.
The Tribunal held that the explanation given by the assessee clearly shows that there was neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. Shri Rajnikant Chaniyari appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Hoshang B Irani appeared on behalf of the revenue.
Σχόλια