Case Law Details
Brief of the Case
In the case of M/s Kantilal Siyaram vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad), the assessee has claimed that advance tax was paid, which was not recorded in the original return on the income which was remained to be disclosed in original return. When the assessee realized the mistake which was pointed out by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised return although such revised return was not filed within the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal observed that it is the settled proposition of law that a bonafide mistake of the assessee cannot be fastened with the liability of penalty.
Facts of the Case
Search action u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 31.05.2006. The original return was filed on 31.10.2007 declaring total income at Rs.1,04,490/- and the advance tax paid Rs.35,000/-. The assessee had made payment of advance tax amounting to Rs.1,01,000/- on 15.06.2006 on the basis of disclosure made. However the assessee had not incorporated the discrepancies found during the course of search proceedings i.e. the amount related to unaccounted stock amounting to Rs.2,59,351/- and income earned from unaccounted sources amounting to Rs.40,649/- which was admitted by the assessee during the course of survey proceedings. Assessment proceedings u/s 153A were initiated in the preceding assessment years and the case was selected for scrutiny assessment. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer pointed out the said discrepancies with regard to stock and income earned from unaccounted sources amounting to Rs.2,59,351/- and Rs.40,649/- respectively observing that in the letter dated 04.12.2008, the assessee admitted those discrepancies. On 23.12.2008, the assessee filed its revised return declaring total income of Rs.4,04,490/- and claiming advance tax of Rs.1,36,000/-. The Assessing Officer framed assessment u/s 143(3), assessing the income as declared in the revised return at Rs.4,04,490/- and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied vide order dated 24.06.2009. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.1,01,000/-. Against this, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who, after considering the submissions of the assessee, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before Tribuanl.
Contention of the assessee
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
