Appellate Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, directs deletion of penalty for inadvertent income omission

The Appellate Tribunal, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in CIT vs Suresh Chandra Mittal, ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal considered the inadvertent nature of the omission of interest income, which was rectified voluntarily before the assessment was completed, and concluded that the penalty for concealing income was not justified in this case. As a result, the appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was removed.

---

---

Issues:
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Analysis:
1. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2011-12 but did not include interest received from Government Bonds, leading to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).
2. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings and levied a penalty of Rs. 55,713, which was 100% of the tax sought to be evaded.
3. The assessee contended that the omission of interest income was inadvertent and rectified by filing a revised statement of total income before the completion of assessment.
4. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating that the assessee had concealed income by not including the interest from Government Bonds in the return.
5. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the penalty was unjust as the omission was unintentional and rectified voluntarily.
6. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the assessee had rectified the mistake before the assessment was completed and had no intention to evade tax.
7. Citing the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs Suresh Chandra Mittal, the Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be justified in this case.
8. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c), and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment outlines the sequence of events, arguments presented by the parties, and the reasoning behind the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) based on the inadvertent nature of the omission and the voluntary rectification made by the assessee before the completion of assessment.

---