ITAT: No Income Tax Penalty If Furnishing TDS Form 16 with Error

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.

Arpit Kulshrestha

Arpit Kulshrestha seeks higher interests in financial services, taxation, GST, I-T, etc. Writes articles with depth knowledge and is extensive for the same. The resources provide effective articles for the products of SAG infotech which provides taxation and IT software. Writing from observations and researching makes his articles virtuous.

Recent Posts

No GST Returns Will Be Accepted If Filed More Than 3 Years Past Their Due Date

An advisory has been released by the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) which notifies…

10 hours ago

Delhi HC: Two Judgment Orders Against One SCN Cannot Be Accepted for the Same Period

It was cited by the Delhi HC that the two adjudication orders against one SCN…

12 hours ago

CBDT Allows Electronic Filing of Forms 3CEDA and 3C-O Via Notification No. 5/2024

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in an update for the taxpayers via the…

13 hours ago

October 2024 Records the 2nd Highest GST Collection, Driven by Domestic Sales

In October, Gross GST collection surged to 9% to Rs 1.87 lakh crore, the second…

15 hours ago

UP AAR: GST Will Be Levied on the Installation of Electricity Distribution Systems by DISCOMs

Goods and Services Tax (GST) is to get paid on the procurement of materials and…

2 days ago

Bombay HC Quashes Rejection Order for Voluntary GST Cancellation Due to Lack of Stated Reasons

The Bombay High Court carried that as the revocation orders for the registration cancellation on…

3 days ago