Income Tax

Concealment penalty for not offering LFC/LTC to tax under bonafide belief that it was exempt deleted

Concealment penalty for not offering LFC/LTC reimbursement to tax under bonafide belief that it was exempt as the employer did not deduct tax at source, deleted

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2637 (2018) (11) ITAT

The appeal was preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

The assessment of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 / 148 because the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee has not included the amount of Leave Fare Concession ( LFC ) / Leave Travel Concession ( LTC ) received from its employers in its income and the same was claimed to be exempt u/s 10(5) of the Act.

The reassessment was completed after making the addition of LFC/LTC received from the employer. Penalty proceedings were separately initiated.

During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee contended that since his employer bank did not deduct tax at source on the LFC/LTC payment, the assessee was under bonafide belief that the same was exempt.

The contention of the assessee did not find favour with the Assessing Officer who proceeded by levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A), but without any success.

The Tribunal observed that there was no dispute that the employer Bank did not deduct tax at source on reimbursement of LFC/LTC and it cannot be ruled out that the assessee was under bonafide belief that the same is exempt from tax. Otherwise, the employer would have deducted tax at source.

The Tribunal opined that it could not be stated that the assessee had concealed its particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income.

Considering the circumstances under which the assessee formed bonafide belief, the Tribunal opined that this was not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the penalty levied.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Once assessee discharges primary onus, it shifts to AO to bring evidence to contrary – ITAT

Once assessee discharges primary onus of providing basic documents in support of the identity, genuineness and the creditworthiness it shifts…

8 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Cost Inflation Index for FY/Tax Year 2026-27 notified by CBDT. See Up-to-date Table of CII

CBDT has notified Cost Inflation Index for Financial Year / Tax Year 2026-27 CBDT has notified "384" as Cost Inflation…

17 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Power of CIT(A) u/s 251(1)(a) to remand case can be exercised only in best judgment assessment

Power of CIT(A) under section 251(1)(a) to remand case could be exercised only when the assessment is passed u/s 144…

1 day ago
  • ICAI

ICAI (Global Networking) Guidelines, 2025 kept in abeyance

ICAI (Global Networking) Guidelines, 2025 kept in abeyance In February 2026, ICAI had issued ICAI (Global Networking) Guidelines 2025 to…

2 days ago
  • Empanelment

Bank of India-Online Concurrent Audit Empanelment FY 2026-27. Last Date : 15.07.2026

Bank of India-Online Concurrent Audit Empanelment  FY 2026-27. Last Date to apply is 15.07.2026 Notice for CA firms applying for…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Assessing Officer not an expert to do the job of share premium valuation – ITAT

  AO was not competent in valuing the share premium amount as he is not an expert to do the…

3 days ago