2016 (11) TMI 380

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....passed by the learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called "the AO") u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter called "the Act"). 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the memo of appeal filed with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") read as under:- "Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c): 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (l)(c) of the Income tax Act, without appreciating that there was no concealment of income nor inaccurate particular of income was furnished by the assessee, merely because of difference of opinion, levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1 )(c) is not justified. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant has disclosed each fa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the AO to file the return of income of his son Mr. Vivek Kohli to prove that the balance rent amount of Rs. 2,76,250/- has been offered for taxation by her son Mr Vivek Kohli in return of income filed with the Revenue. However, the assessee did not submit the return of income of his son, Mr Vivek Kohli but vide letter dated 13th December, 2010 the assessee explained that the rental income of Rs. 2,41,250/- was share of rental income of her son Mr Vivek Kohli which was received by the assessee in her bank account and same had been shown as liability payable to Mr Vivek Kohli in her Balance Sheet and since he is out of India the amount is outstanding to be payable to him . Since the assessee failed to bring on record that her son has in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee in the return of income filed with the Revenue and the said income has suffered taxation and hence an amount of Rs. 1,97,184/- was imposed as penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO on the assessee vide penalty orders dated 25-03-2013 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, which penalty order was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) to the tune of penalty amount of Rs. 65,728/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income vide appellate order dated 04- 07-2014, as it has been mentioned in the penalty order dated 25-03-2013 that the A.O. intended to impose minimum penalty of Rs. 65,728/- while actually imposed penalty of Rs. 1,97,184/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the learned CIT(A) directed the AO to look into th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 14-09-2007 with Nicolas Novacek entered into w.r.t. the said flat at Shyamkunj, both the assesssee and Mr Vivek Kohli are the licensors of the said flat(page 16-26/pb). It is also submitted that Mr Vivek Kohli is NRI and no return of income was filed by him as there is no other income of the said Mr. Vivek Kohli. It was also submitted that the AO intended to impose minimum penalty of Rs. 65,728/- vide penalty orders dated 25-03-2013 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act but actually levied penalty of Rs. 1,97,184/- erroneously which needed to be corrected. The learned CIT(A) has given directions to correct this error. 6. The ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the materi....