Penalty 271(1)(c) deleted as employee was misguided by employer cooperative bank that interest income was exempt
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3155 (2019) (09) ITAT
Important case law relied upon by the parties:
Badshah Parshad Vs. CIT, 127 ITA 601 (Patna)
Rave Entertainment P.Ltd. Vs. CIT, 376 ITR 544 (All)
Garden Silk Weaving Factor, 172 ITR 575
Price Water House, 348 ITR 306 (SC)
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) deleted as employee was misguided by employer
In The instant case, appeals were filed by the assessee against order(s) of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
The assessee was a salaried employee working with the Co-operative Bank. The case of the assessee was reopened for the reasons that he had omitted to disclose interest income in his return of income.
Subsequently, Penalty had been imposed upon the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for all the three Assessment Years under appeal.
Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that in each assessment years, he had declared more interest income as against proposed additions by the Assessing Officer (AO) in reasons for reopening the assessment. Thus, the assessee had already included more interest income than the one alleged by the AO.
The assessee submitted that the error at the end of the assessee had happened on the ground that being an employee of the cooperative bank, he was given an impression that since TDS provision was not applicable to cooperative bank, therefore such interest income is exempt from tax.
He submitted that under this bona fide belief he did not include the above income. In support of his contentions, he relied upon number of decisions.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee has not deliberately withheld the information from the department. He had been misguided by the employer as well as management of the cooperative bank, hence under a misconception of law, he failed to disclose the interest income.
The Tribunal noted that otherwise, when he was appraised his mistake, he immediately furnished more interest income which could even take care of small penalty imposed upon the assessee. Thus there was no deliberate attempt at the end of the assessee to conceal his particulars of income.
Therefore, the Tribunal allowed all the appeals of the assessee and cancelled penalties imposed in all the years.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Report of the Company law committee on Decriminalization of the LLP Act 2008
- Penalty u/s 271E deleted when loan was paid in cash to avoid default effecting CIBIL score
- Extension of validity of FCRA registration certificates expiring between 29.09.2020 and 31.05.2021
- MCA gives more time for holding AGM through VC/OAVM in Calendar Year 2021 subject to legal action
- Waiver of additional fees of overdue filings by struck off companies restored by NCLT order u/s 252
addition u/s 68 ca misconduct cash deposit in bank CBDT cbdt circular CBDT Instruction cbdt notification cbdt order cbdt press release cgst circular cgst notification cit revision 263 concealment penalty covid-19 custom circular demonetisation due date extension e-way bill faq GST circular GST Council Meeting gst faq gstr-1 GSTR-3B GST rates gst refund IBBI income tax prosecution itat ITAT Delhi mca circular MCA notification order u/s 119 penalty 271(1)(c) penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Press Release reasons recorded reopening 148 Reopening us 147 sebi circular sebi regulations transfer and postings unexplained cash credits validity of notice u/s 148 Withdrawal of 2000 500 Bank Notes----------- Similar Posts: -----------