Case Law Details
Addl. CIT Vs Tejal Ashish Mehta (ITAT Mumbai)
The assessee has furnished a copy of Income Tax return for assessment year 2016-17. A perusal of the same shows that in Schedule – EI, wherein the assessee was required to declare exempt income, the assessee has duly reflected the maturity value of the insurance policy. The same amount has been disclosed by the assessee in the Statement of Income annexed to the return of income. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has paid 30% taxes on fair market value of foreign asset along with 30% penalty, aggregating to 60% of the total value of the foreign asset under One Time Compliance Scheme of the Act. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied u/s. 43 of the Act by Assessing Officer by placing reliance on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Leena Gandhi Tiwari(supra).
It is an undisputed fact that by the end of F.Y.2015-16 the foreign asset ceases to exists as the assessee surrendered the said policy and the maturity amount of policy was duly reflected in Income Tax Return. Bonafide mistake in not disclosing foreign asset in Schedule –FA of the Income Tax Return is a reasonable cause for deleting penalty in the given circumstances. Furnishing of inaccurate particulars about asset located outside India cannot be imputed as the assessee had already made declaration under the Act the same was accepted and maturity amount of Life Insurance Policy has been disclosed in Income Tax Return. Thus, taking into consideration entire facts, we are of the view that the impugned order warrants no interference. Hence, the same is upheld and appeal by the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [ in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 25/07/2022, for the Assessment Year 2016-17.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
