Income Tax

Not disclosing salary was not concealment when TDS was also not claimed – ITAT

Not disclosing salary was not concealment when TDS also not claimed by the assessee. ITAT deleted penalty holding that there was a reasonable cause provided in Section 273B

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2761 (2019) (01) ITAT

This assessee had challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

The case of the Revenue was that during the year under consideration, the assessee had worked with two Information Technology companies as a salaried employees. However, the assessee, in the return of income admittedly disclosed only the salary income received from the later company and not disclosed the salary received from the first company.

The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that he was not aware of provisions. However, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee concealed the income received and imposed the impugned penalty. On a query from Bench, the Revenue submitted that both the companies had deducted tax at source (TDS) at the time of making payment but the assessee had also not claimed the tax deducted by the first company.

The Tribunal opined that had the assessee claimed TDS made by the first company, then it can be said that the assessee had concealed part of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. According to the Tribunal, the very fact that the assessee had not claimed TDS made by the first company showed that there was a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not disclosing the salary received from the first company.

According to the Tribunal, since the TDS was deducted, the fact of salary received by the assessee was very much within the knowledge of the Department.

In view of the above, the Tribunal opined that there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee as provided in Section 273B of the Act and hence, this was not a fit case for levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below were set aside and the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was deleted

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Penalty u/s 270A deleted as assessee filed revised computation during scrutiny

Penalty u/s 270A deleted as assesse filed revised computation during scrutiny correcting the mistake which was noticed only after the…

17 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271B for unfilled column 40 in Tax Audit Report Form 3CD deleted by ITAT

Penalty u/s 271B for unfilled column 40 in Form 3CD related to details regarding turnover, gross profit etc. for previous…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Merely ex-parte rectifying computation without amending assessment order not make it nullity- ITAT

Merely rectifying computation without amending assessment order without notice to assessee does not nullify the entire assessment  - ITAT In…

6 days ago
  • 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…

1 week 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…

1 week 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 week ago