Usha Narhari Hadekar, Mumbai vs Assessee

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण एफ खंडपीठ मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - F BENCH सव ौी आई पी बंसल , याियक सदःय एवं राजे ि, लेखा सदःय Before S/Sh. I P Bansal,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.7598/Mum/2012,िनधा िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year-2008-09 Kamalakar Narhari Hadker Legal ACIT 19(3), hair of Late Smt. Usha Narhari Mumbai-20 Hadker,Kiran,27thRoad, Bandra(W), Vs Mumbai-400050 PAN: AAAPH2558L (अपीलाथ$ /Assessee) (ू&यथ$ / Respondent) िनधा 'रती ओर से/Assessee by :Shri Keyuri Doshi राजःव क* ओर से/ Revenue by :Shri Pawan Kumar Beerla सुनवाई क* तार+ख/ Date of Hearing : 25- 03 -2015 घोषणा क* तार+ख / Date of Pronouncement : 25-03-2015 आय कर अिधिनयम,1961 अिधिनयम क* धारा 254(1) के अ तग त आदे श Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) Per Rajendra, A.M.लेखा सदःय राजे ि के अनुसार:

Challenging the order dt.05.09.2012 of the CIT(A)-30,Mumbai, the assessee has raised following Grounds of Appeal:

1. The Ld. CIT( Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 30,973/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act levied by the A.O. The same may please be deleted.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, supplement, alter and/or delete any of the above Grounds of Appeal.

Brief Facts

2.On perusal of AIR Information,the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee had received interest amounting to Rs. 3,55,276/-. However, as per the return the interest received on FD shown by the assessee was Rs. 2.84 Lakhs. During the course of assessment proceedings,the AO asked the assessee to reconcile the interest received as per the AIR Information and interest shown by her in the return of income. It was submitted by the assessee that by mistake she had shown low interest income, that the mistake had arisen due to arithmetical error in excel sheet while giving the formula for total interest and the actual interest received on FD.However, the AO did not accept the aforesaid reply of the assessee and made an addition of Rs. 91,214/- (Rs. 3,76,403-Rs. 284,829) He also initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.explantion 1 for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee did not appear. The AO levied penalty of Rs. 30973/-.

3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). After considering the submission of the assessee the FAA held that there was under assessment of Rs. 91,214/-, that the assessee had tried to explain that the mistake occurred because of the problems with MS Excel,that assessee came out with the explanation only after the AO had detected the understatement,that the AO was justified in levying the penalty.

4.Before us,the Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the Late assessee had not deli

-berately concealed the particulars of income,that she had paid taxes,that it was a bonafide and inadvertent mistake by the assessee,that AO had not rejected the explanation of the 2 ITA No. 7598/Mum/2012 Kamalakar Narhari Hadker

assesee that the mistake occurred due to error in excel working in the computer.He relied upon the cases of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT(Civil appeal no. 6924 2012( (SC),Somany Everagree Knits Ltd. [20013] 35 taxmann. com 529(Bombay High Court), Janus Investment Fund v.DDIT (ITA 6975/Mum/2010) (Mumbai Tribunal),Skyline Auto Products (P) Ltd[2005]142taxman558(Madras High Court), Shahabad Co-op Sugar Mills [2010] 129 TTJ 92 (Chd Trib) (UO),Sarv Prakash Kapoor (ITA 95 of 2012)(ITAT Agra),Departmental Representative(DR)supported the order of the FAA and relied upon the case of Dharmendra Textile.

5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the assessee had explained the reason of difference between the interest income shown by her in the return of income and the interest income as reported in the AIR. In our opinion, an addition in quantum proceedings should not result in automatic levy of penalty for concealment. In our opinion,the explanation offered by the assessee is one of the plausible explanations.The payment of taxes by the assessee and the smallness of tax effect are other surrounding circumstances for us to take the final decision.We are of the opinion that it is a case of bonafide and inadvertent mistake.Cases relied upon by the assessee also favour the stand taken by the assessee.Therefore,reversing the order of the FAA,we decide the effective ground of appeal in favour of the assessee, As a result,appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.

फलतः िनधा 'रती 2ारा दा3खल क* गई अपील मंजूर क* जाती है .

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th,March,2015.

आदे श क* घोषणा खुले यायालय म7 8दनांक 25 माच ,2015 को क* गई ।

Sd/- Sd/- आई पी बंसल/I (आई ल P Bansal) (राजे ि / RAJENDRA) याियक सदःय / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदःय / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER मुंबई/Mumbai,8दनांक/Date: 25.03.2015 SK आदे श क* ूितिल;प अमे;षत/Copy षत of the Order forwarded to : 1.Appellant /अपीलाथ$ 2. Respondent /ू&यथ$

3.The concerned CIT(A)/संब= अपीलीय आयकर आयु>, 4.The concerned CIT /संब= आयकर आयु>

5.DR "F" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai /;वभागीय ूितिनिध, एफ खंडपीठ,आ.अ. याया.मुंबई

6.Guard File/गाड फाईल स&या;पत ूित //True Copy// आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार Dy./Asst. Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /ITAT, Mumbai.