TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 339
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return on 17.07.2006 declaring total income of Rs. 4,13,825/-. Proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s 143(2). A questionnaire was also issued in the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee revised the return on 10.03.2008 declaring total income of Rs. 5,76,697/-. The revision was made on account of interest, which was stated to be inadvertently not included in the original return. The assessment was completed at total income of Rs. 5,79,697/-. In this return, addition of Rs. 3,000/- was made in respect of interest income accruing from the post office. It is mentioned that the interest accrued for 9 months but the assessee has included interest for eight months only.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore the ld. CIT(Appeals), i.e., no satisfaction has been recorded by the AO, the return has been filed voluntarily, there is no conscious breach of law. Penalty cannot be levied on the basis of assessment order which has no foundation and in any case penalty cannot be levied in respect of amount of Rs. 3,000/-, the addition for which was made by the AO to the income shown in the revised return. It was further submitted that the order of processing the return was made on 31.03.2008, i.e., after completion of regular assessment. The ld. CIT(Appeals) rejected these arguments and dismissed the appeal. In particular, it has been mentioned that the satisfaction is discernible from the assessment order, which is the only requirement in view of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in a separate bank account. The interest earned from such deposit was not inadvertently shown in the original return of income. This occurred due to lapse of memory. Thus, the explanation of the assessee should be taken to be bona fide when examined in the context of surrounding circumstances. 2.1 In reply, the ld. senior DR relied on the concurrent findings of the authorities below. In particular, it is mentioned that the revised return was filed after issuance of questionnaire in which details of investments and earnings thereon were requisitioned. Therefore, the case squarely falls within the ratio of Zoom Communications Ltd. (supra). 3. We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. Before proceeding with the....