TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 745
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee who was employed with E-18 Division of Network 18 Media & Investments Limited and having salary as his main source of income, had filed his return of income on 20.07.2011, declaring total income of Rs. 68,02,888/-, which was processed as such u/s 143(1) of the 'Act,. That the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment and a notice u/s 143(2) dated. 08.09.2012 was issued to the assessee, The assessee in response to the aforesaid notice u/s 143(2), therein filed a letter dated. 17.09.2012 with the A.O. That during the course of the assessment proceedings for the immediate preceding year, viz. A.Y. 2010-11, which too was pending at the relevant point of time, the Chartered accountant of the assessee while reconciling the income and TDS with Form 26AS, therein realized that certain interest income pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12 had remained omitted to be offered for tax, as well as no claim of credit of the TDS corresponding to such interest income was raised in the 'returns of income' for both of the said respective years. The assessee thus in order to undo the aforesaid mistake, thus compiled th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 92,37,010/- (supra). However, the A.O not finding favor with the submissions of the assessee that as neither the details of the 'interest income' pertaining to the advances/loans to the respective parties, viz. (i). Net 4 India Ltd. (F.D); (ii). Darshaw K.D.B Mehta Mehta; (iii). Shapoorjee Chandbhoy Fin. Pvt. Ltd; and (iv). Barman K D B Mehta, were available with the assessee at the time of filing of the 'return of income', therefore the same alongwith the corresponding TDS had therein remained omitted to be reflected in the return of income, thus rejected the said explanation of the assessee. The A.O also did not find himself to be in agreement with the contention of the assessee that as the 'bank statement' of ICICI Bank account which was operated by him through net banking was not available with him at the time of filing of the 'return of income', therefore, inadvertently the interest income as regards the same had remained omitted to be included in the returned income, therein held a conviction that the assessee had concealed his income, therefore initiated penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands of the assessee. That the assessee accepted the assessment order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontention that additional income disclosed by the assessee on suo motto basis, though after issuance of a notice under Sec. 143(2), cannot solely on the said count lead to levy of penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c), therein relied on the order of the Delhi bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Ashok Raj Nath (ITA No. 2970/Del/2012; dated. 31.08.2012) as well as the order of the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ms. Prema Gopal Rao Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 8653/Mum/2011; dated. 07.01.2015). The ld. A.R further submitted that the aforesaid inadvertent omission of the 'interest income' came to the notice of the Chartered accountant of the assessee, while the latter during the course of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee for the immediately preceding year, viz. A.Y. 2010-11 was reconciling the 'interest income' shown in the 'return of income', as against that as stood reflected in Form 26AS. 7 The ld. A.R in the backdrop of the aforesaid factual matrix therein averred that the assessee on learning of his inadvertent mistake, wherein the 'interest income' alongwith the claim towards credit of the corresponding TDS had remained omitted to be shown by the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e aforesaid revised computation of income. It was further submitted by the ld. D.R that the revised computation of income had no existence in the eyes of law, and thus the same cannot be placed at par with a revised return of income. The ld. D.R thus in the backdrop of his aforesaid averments, therein submitted that the A.O had rightly imposed penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands of the assessee, which after thorough deliberations had been upheld by the CIT(A). The ld. D.R thus submitted that the appeal of the assessee was devoid of any force and was thus liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material placed on record. We find that the assessee had voluntarily as on 23.11.2012, though after receiving the notice under Sec. 143(2) on 17.09.2012, but prior to raising of any queries by the A.O in respect of the 'Interest income' received by the assessee during the year under consideration, viz. A.Y. 2011-12, therein realizing his inadvertent mistake of having omitted to reflect the interest income aggregating to Rs. 20,09,722/- (supra), therein filed a 'Revised Computation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed a 'Revised Computation of Income' therein reflecting the 'interest income' and claiming credit of the TDS relatable to the same, as well as on his own had paid the 'tax' and 'Interests' u/ss. 234B/234C relatable to such income, therefore, to the extent adjudication of the issue of levy of penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands of the assessee is concerned, we are of the considered view that the assessee cannot be visited with such penalty on account of technical and venial lapses on his part. We further find ourselves to be in agreement with the ld. A.R that merely because the assessee had came up with a revised 'return of income' after receipt of notice under Sec. 143(2), the same on the said count itself cannot be categorized as the 'Concealed income' of the assessee. We find that the reliance placed by the ld. A.R on the order of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, viz. Income tax Appellate Tribunal "C" Bench, Mumbai, in the case of Ms. Prema Gopal Rao Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 8653/Mum/2011; dated. 07.01.2015) in support of his aforesaid contention to be well placed. 9. We further find substantial force in the contention of the ld. A.R that now when a similar 'interest inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of Orient Press Ltd., reported in 99 TTJ 1091 has held that under identical facts when the A.O had not levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act in the preceding year, therefore, it is not open to the A.O to impose penalty on the admittedly identical facts for the impugned assessment year." We find ourselves to be in agreement with the aforesaid view arrived at by the coordinate benches of the Tribunal. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and are of the considered view that now when no penalty had been imposed in the hands of the assessee in respect of similar 'interest income' of Rs. 12,88,273/- (supra) which was offered for tax by the assessee by way of a 'Revised Computation of Income' in the course of the assessment proceedings in his case for A.Y. 2010-11, therefore, an inconsistent and whimsical approach on the part of the A.O, therein leading to levy of penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in respect of similar 'interest income' which too was offered for tax by the assessee by way of 'Revised Computation of Income', cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 10. We further find that the bonafides of the assessee that the aforesaid 'interest income'....