AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e adjudicating both the appeals by a single order. 2.Assessee,an individual filed his return of income,on 29.3.2010,declaring income of Rs. 39, 16,000/-.Subsequently,a revised return was filed on 31.03.2011 showing income of Rs. 46.76 lakhs, The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice u/s. 142(2) was issued on 20.08.10. The AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, on 12.12.11,determining the income of the assessee at 46,77,550/-. 3.During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked as to why the revised return should be considered, as the original rerun was not filed in time as provided u/s.139(1)of the Act. Accordingly, the revised return was not considered filed as per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the provisions of section 139(4) could not be revised, that it was the duty of the assessee to disclose the true amount of total income for the year under appeal,that the reason for revising the return was claim of maintenance charges against the rent which was not allowable u/s.23/24 of the Act, that the assessee had claimed that he was not having full information about the bank interest on FDRs held by him as well as held on behalf of his minor son.The AO further held that cases relied upon by the assessee were not applicable to the facts of the matter before him.He finally held that assessee had concealed/ furnished inaccurate particulars of income in the original return,that it was a fit case where penalty u/s.271(1)(c) was required t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... particulars while filing the return, that the penalty levied section 271(1)(c) was a civil liability, that the willful concealment was not an essential ingredient for levying the penalty, that it was the duty of the assessee to make a correct and complete disclosure of his income. The FAA referred to the explanation of the section 271(1)(c) and held that provisions of clause (B) of the explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act were attracted for testing the exigibility of penalty in the case under consideration, that the assessee was not able to prove that explanation filed by it was bona fide, that he could not prove that all the facts relating to the competition of income were disclosed, that the assessee had hidden or concealed the FD....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2013-dated,15/01/2016) and Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (359ITR565). The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that it was a clear case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars, that the assessee himself had admitted "inadvertent mistake" with regard to house property income, that the accrual of interest was not dependent on TDS, both the authorities have given clear finding about the failure of the assessee. 6.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.Before proceeding further, we would like to mention that no authority is required to hold that the assessment and penalty proceedings are different and the issue of levy of penalty has to be taken independently. Additions made during the quantum proceedi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same footing. 6.1.It is true that all the cases of filing of inaccurate particulars of income may not result in concealing the particulars of income-in some cases there may be only filing of inaccurate particulars and in some other cases there may be concealment of particulars of income. But, there may be a few cases where filing of inaccurate particulars lead to concealment.Thus,it is not every case that the AO should strike off the phrases in the show cause notice.What the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held in the case of Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory(supra) is that penalty should not be levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars,if same was initiated for concealing the particulars of income.The Hon'ble court has not delibera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave been levied with regard to the accrued interest not shown in the original return. But, as far as the second addition is concerned there was no justification on part of the assessee to claim of maintenance-charges against the rental income. In the explanation filed by the assessee, he has stated that it was an inadvertent mistake. We are of the opinion that it is not an issue where two views are possible or there can be difference of opinion. It is a clear case of making an inadmissible claim, as state earlier. Has the case not been scrutinised, the assessee would have walked away with it. It is also a fact that so-called revised return was filed after the AO had issued a notice u/s.143(2)notice. We should not forget that only a miniscul....