2019 (6) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the Revenue : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 22nd November 2017, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-21, Mumbai, confirming penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") amounting to Rs. 55,260, for the assessment year 2014-15. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fficer called upon the assessee to explain why such payment should not be disallowed, the assessee submitted that due to over sight, the amount was not added back to the total income in the computation of income. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed the amount of Rs. 1,62,563 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On the basis of such disallowance, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for im....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed the aforesaid fact was filed by the assessee along with return of income. He submitted, the assessee due to over sight could not add back the amount in the computation of income. He submitted, non-disallowance of the expenditure was due to bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee and the assessee cannot be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, he submitted, the pena....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fficer came to know about the non-deduction of tax at source on the payment of Rs. 1,62,563, from the tax audit report. The explanation of the assessee for non-deduction of tax at source is, due to oversight the assessee could not add back the amount disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the computation of income. In our view, the aforesaid explanation of the assessee appears to be plau....