Admittedly there is a mistake committed by the assessee in not adding interest on the refund to his sources of income. There is no disputing the fact that the tax payer duly and diligently must necessarily in its return of income disclose all avenues of his income. The assessee in its defence has consistently maintained that the mistake has occurred as the information in regard to the said interest was not available in the public domain namely 26AS form of the assessee firm downloaded from the system and lack of any other intimation also available to the assessee from the Income Tax Department. These facts are not rebutted by the Revenue as CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty holding that it was the duty of the assessee to check and recheck the avenues of his income. The fact that it was the duty of the tax payer to follow due diligence cannot be over emphasized. However, considering the fact that the assessee is not a habitual defaulter and as per the assessment order, is shown to be “trading in wood”. There is nothing on record to show that it was an act of concealment nor is there any fact on record that there was a deliberate filing of inaccurate particulars of income. No doubt the assessee is expected to show due diligence and is mandatorily required to disclose all avenues of income before filing of his return. The mistake in the peculiar facts as considered in the decision of Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. (2012) 25 Taxmann.Com 400 (S.C) being a bonafide or inadvertent mistake cannot be the basis for levying or upholding the penalty of Rs. 43,021/-. Accepting the consistent explanation of the assessee as a bonafide inadvertent mistake, the impugned order is set aside and the penalty order is directed to be quashed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
ORDER
PER DIVA SINGH,JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 12.07.2016 of CIT(A)-I Amritsar, pertaining to 2012-13 assessment year on the following grounds :
“1. That the Id. CIT (A) is not justified in upholding the assessment order having failed in discharging the onerous duty as an appellate authority for passing a order which is bad in law and as per facts of the case going to prejudice the. appellant..
2.. That the Id. CIT (A) is not justified in upholding the imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) on account of short disclosure of interest on Income tax refund of Rs 139234/- in its income tax return as the assessee was ignorant about the amount of interest and no intimation of interest on refund was available with the assessee.
3. That no intimation u/s 143(1) was received by the assessee firm to know the amount of interest on refund. The only source available with the assessee firm to know the amount of interest on income tax refund was the amount of refund and interest appearing in form 26AS. But unfortunately the Form 26AS shows Nil interest on refund.
4. That assessee firm could not assess the exact amount of interest on refunds because due to mismatch, the assesssee received short refunds from the actual refunds due. The assessee firm received refunds of Rs 19.95 Lac against the refund dues for the A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. The detail of refund dues and refunds received by assessee firm are detailed as under:
