Case Law Details
Sunita Shreegopal Barasia Vs Asstt. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Conclusion: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be levied for bonafide explanation furnished by assessee as assessee had not offered interest income for tax due to wrong interpretations of the provisions of the Act, not on account of deliberate concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income.
Held: Assessee had claimed exemption under section 10(4)(ii) for receiving interest on NRE deposit under the bona fide impression that she was a non-resident under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA). AO however, levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the ground of concealment of particulars of income. In the present case, assessee had not offered interest income for tax due to wrong interpretations of the provisions of the Act and not on account of deliberate concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. Assessee was under bonafide impression that she is a ‘person resident outside India’ as defined under FEMA. The explanation furnished by assessee in not disclosing the interest income in the return appeared to be quite genuine. Thus, the explanation furnished by assessee was not covered by Clause(B) of Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c).
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
The present Appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeal) – 30, Mumbai dated 31.07.15 for AY 2008-09 on the grounds mentioned herein below:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
