Oversight to submit Form 16 cannot attract Tax Penalty: ITAT [Read Order]

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune bench comprising Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member And Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member has held that an oversight to submit the information relating to the income cannot attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The assessee, Anmole Singh Ghuman is an individual filed return declaring total income of Rs.5,39,360/-. A notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued seeking explanation regarding the return of income. According to the AO on verification of 26AS data, it was found that the assessee accepted salary income from Sesa Sterlite Ltd. and not offered for taxation. For not disclosing the said salary in the return of income, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars.

On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the order.

The assessee contended that due to oversight the document relating to Form 16 from Sesa Sterlite Ltd. was misplaced and it was not intentionally nor wantonly suppressed the same.

The division bench noted that it was explained by the assessee by oversight the salary derived from Sesa Sterlite Ltd. was not included in the return of income, but however in the scrutiny proceedings the same was accepted by the assessee to be his income and paid taxes thereon.

“The ld. DR supported the order of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty that the assessee intentionally not disclosed the said salary income, due to which the high income would not have come to taxability but otherwise on scrutiny assessment the assessee disclosed the same to taxation. The ld. CIT(A) rightly confirmed the order of AO taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case. We note that the assessee did not suppress the fact that no income incurred as such, but however it is reflected in Form 26AS data which is otherwise a salary data and TDS deductions are available for examination to the AO. Therefore, in our considered opinion as contended by the AO that it was not furnishing of inaccurate particulars but it can only be oversight the assessee could not offer the same. On such circumstances, the explanation as offered by the assessee is bonafide. Thus, when it is not furnishing of inaccurate particulars, levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars does not arise,” the Tribunal said.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.