TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 627
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... down. ii. The penalty of Rs. 1,88,640/- is against facts and law and is based on assumptions & conjectures & based on conclusions extraneous to the issue involved and the law on the point. iii. The ld. CIT(A), has upheld the addition, which was the basis for the levy of penalty, without giving any reasons for rejecting the submissions made by the assessee in this regard. iv. That the addition made was at best on account of an innocent mistake on the part of the assessee and the assessee never had intentions to conceal her income, as is apparent from the facts of the case. v. That the order is against the interpretation of law given in various judicial pronouncements, including a recent pronouncement by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he submissions as made in the written synopsis. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the amount was wrongly offered for tax, in fact this amount was not taxable. Learned DR opposed the submission and supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The contentions of the assessee in the written synopsis are as under:- "The assessee u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the AY 2008-09 in the case of the assessee was completed after adding the following amounts to the Returned Income. Principal Amount Withdrawn from NSS Rs. 606572/-. Disallowance of Accounting Charges Claimed under sec. 57 Rs. 5056/-. Reduction of Deduction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee on the basis that as per the provisions of the scheme, at the time of withdrawal of money from the scheme the entire amount will be taxed including interest in the year of withdrawal. Though the scheme had been taken in the name of the assessee, the amount in actual had not been deposited by her in the scheme. It was assessee's father Shri Ravinder Singh Jhelumi who has made deposits in NSS and claimed the deduction u/s 80CCA in the income tax returns filed by him for the relevant assessment years. So, if the deposits have not been made by the assessee in NSS and the deductions u/s 80CCA has not been claimed by her, then how can the withdrawals from NSS be taxable in the hands of the assessee? The Provisions of Sec 80CCA are reprodu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal was filed. The Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified with his approach and this regard, reference may be made to Para 4 of page 48 of Kanga and Palkhiwala 8th Edition Vo.1, which states that "it may be question whether it is legitimate to have regard to the fact that the it is now known that the payments are irrevocable and that the contingency of repayment can now never arise....... A court ought not to shut its eyes to the true facts if it subsequently knows them although these facts could not have been known when the question originally arose, and ought to resort to guessing when certainty is available. Since, from the above stated facts, withdrawals from NSS are not liable to be taxed in the hands of assessee, this addition cannot e m....