2015 (10) TMI 747 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's Appeals Allowed: No Malafide Intent, Genuine Belief

Wilima Wadhwa Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-23 (1), New Delhi

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, emphasizing the absence of malafide intent in the non-disclosure of income and the genuine belief regarding ... Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - undisclosed remittance from US - contention of the assessee that the non-inclusion of said amount in the income was on account of bonafide belief of the assessee as she was a non-resident in earlier year, as such the said amount was not taxable in those years - Held that:- In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee was a non-resident till the assessment year 2002-03, thereafter she shifted to India. The assessee was earning honorarium from the University of California, Irvine as there was a treaty between the USA and the India, the amount so received by the assessee was not taxable in USA. The assessee was under a bonafide belief that the income earned in USA was exempt under DTAA between USA and India and this fact was disclosed in Form No. 1040NR for the year 2005 comprising the Income Tax Return filed by US Non-Resident Alien. From the aforesaid facts it appears that there was no malafide intention of the assessee to either conceal any income or to furnish inaccurate particulars of income because the amount received as honorarium was disclosed by the assessee and due taxes was paid when it was pointed out that the said amount i.e. foreign remittance in USD received from USA was taxable. In the present case, the AO also made the addition by disallowing 50% of the expenses claimed by the assessee on account of her visit to University of California. The said disallowance was purely on adhoc basis, so it cannot be said that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of her income or concealed the income. In my opinion the present case can be a good case or making the addition but not for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts of this case deem it appropriate to delete the penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by the AO for non-disclosure of foreign remittance in the return of income; Assessment of whether the penalty levied was justified based on the circumstances and explanations provided by the assessee.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Confirmation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c)- The assessee's appeal contested the penalty of Rs. 1,54,346 imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) for non-disclosure of foreign remittance from the USA.- The AO initiated penalty proceedings after observing discrepancies in the remittance details provided by the assessee.- The assessee argued that she was a non-resident till 2002-03 and believed the income from the USA was not taxable in India.- The AO upheld the penalty, stating that the amount was not declared in the USA or India, constituting inaccurate particulars.- The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, emphasizing the non-disclosure in both countries, leading to the penalty under section 271(1)(c).- The assessee contended that the non-disclosure was due to a bonafide belief and cited cases to support her argument.- The AO and CIT(A) maintained that the penalty was justified due to the non-disclosure and lack of revised returns for the relevant assessment year.Issue 2: Justification of Penalty- The assessee's representative argued that the penalty was unwarranted as the income was later disclosed and taxed in subsequent years.- The AO disallowed expenses and levied the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars, which the assessee claimed was based on a genuine belief.- The representative cited various case laws to support the contention that there was no deliberate intention to conceal income.- The AO and CIT(A) justified the penalty based on the failure to disclose the remittance and provide supporting evidence for expenses.- The Tribunal found that the non-disclosure was not intentional, considering the assessee's history as a non-resident and the belief in the income's non-taxable status under the DTAA.- The Tribunal concluded that the penalty was not justified in this case, given the circumstances, and decided to delete the penalty imposed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A).Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, emphasizing the absence of malafide intent in the non-disclosure of income and the genuine belief regarding the taxability of the remittance. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the unique circumstances of the case and the lack of deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, leading to the deletion of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the relevant assessment years.