TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 747
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s have been raised in this appeal: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,54,346/- levied under section 271(1)(c) by the AO, is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 1,54,346/- levied by the AO on account of remittance from US. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty rejecting the contention of the assessee that the non-inclusion of said amount in the income was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (hereinafter referred to as the Act) 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed her return of income on 27.12.2006 declaring an income of Rs. 8,61,300/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25.08.2007. Thereafter the department received information that the assessee had received foreign remittance in US Dollars from USA and the amount received and the said receipt was not declared in the return of income. Therefore, the AO initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response to the said notice the assessee stated that the return of income was already filed on 27.12.2006 declaring total income of Rs. 8,61,300/-. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this was pointed out, she immediately revised her income tax return for A.Y. 2010-11 and included earnings from the US in taxable income and paid tax accordingly. After that, she has regularly shown her US earnings in income tax returns for A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13. In view of the above recent decisions, it is requested to take a lenient view and not impose penalty." 7. The AO however did not find merit in the aforesaid submission of the assessee and levied the penalty of Rs. 1,54,346/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee was in profession of teaching Statistics and Economics and was associated with a renowned NGO "Pratham" in India, she wen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n purposes, even though the assessee was a resident in India at that time, so it was a clear case of filing of inaccurate particulars which attracted penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty levied by the AO was confirmed. 10. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the AO made the addition on account of the foreign remittance received by the assessee and disallowed 50% of the expenses incurred on estimate basis and levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the said addition & disallowance by alleging that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It was further submitted that the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Shah (1993) 204 ITR 462, 468-69 (Bom) -Dresser Rand India (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 328 (Mum-Trib.) -DCIT Vs Eagle Iron & Metal Industries Ltd. (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 355 (Mum.) 11. It was further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the facts in right prospective and without considering the explanation given by the assessee confirmed the penalty levied by the AO. 12. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee revised return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 but not for the assessment year under consideration and if she was under a bonafide belief that the income earned in USA was taxable then she was duty bound....