The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune bench consists of Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member, And Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member has ruled that oversight to submit the data for the income shall not draw the tax penalty beneath section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The taxpayer, Anmole Singh Ghuman is a person who furnished the return showing a sum of income of Rs .5,39,360/-. A notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was passed asking for the income return. As per the AO on verification of 26AS data, the same is revealed that the taxpayer accepted the salary income via Sesa Sterlite ltd. and did not offer towards the taxation. Towards not showing the mentioned salary in the income return, AO has imposed penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for filing the false particulars. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the order.
The taxpayer specified that because of the oversight the document concerning Form 16 via Sesa Sterlite ltd. was misplaced and the same was not an intention to do that.
The division bench sees that it was elaborated by the taxpayer by oversight the salary made via Sesa Sesa Sterlite Ltd. was not mentioned in the income return. But in the investigation proceedings that was accepted by the taxpayer as his income and furnished the taxes in it.
The ld. DR supported the order of ld. CIT(A) affirms the penalty that no intention of the taxpayer was there to hide the said income, because of which the higher income does not come beneath the taxability but otherwise on the investigation assessment the taxpayer hides that. Acknowledging the facts and possibilities of the case, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO.
In the present case, the income is being shown in income tax form 26AS data which is salary data, and TDS deductions are available for examination to the AO. Hence in our recognition, as said by AO that it was not filed of the proper particulars however it could only be an oversight that the taxpayer can not offer that. In this condition the explanation given by the taxpayer is bonafide. Therefore, when it is not furnishing of the false particulars, imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing the wrong particulars does not wake.
