TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 983
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levying penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act of Rs. 72630/ by holding that the assessee failed to furnish the return of income despite the fact that the assessee had duly filed the return in response to notice u/s 148 on 21.08.2015. 3. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A), Panchkula has erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act of Rs. 72630/ despite the fact that there was no addition (except the disallowance of Rs. 33330/- u/s 80C) to the returned income of the assessee. 4. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A), Panchkula has erred in levying penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act of Rs. 72630/ despite the fact that all the taxes due were already paid before the issue of not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs of 2007-08 which were under way in November, 2012 and the assessee promptly realizing this fact voluntarily addressed this inadvertent bonafide mistake which occurred due to oversight. The return filed voluntarily was complete by paying full taxes on the returned income alongwith self assessment tax etc. upto that date. For the said purpose, attention was invited to Paper Book page 4 which, it was submitted, would demonstrate that on the stated returned income, tax of Rs. 99,682/- inclusive of TDS and self assessed tax stood paid. The second argument was that the very same return was refilled in response to notice u/s 148 issued to the assessee on 27.03.2015. Referring to the reasons recorded at pages 2 and 3, it was his submission that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2015, it was submitted that the penalty imposed accepting the explanation may be quashed. 3. The ld. CIT-Dr Mr. M.Singh relying upon the orders of the authorities submitted that admittedly in the facts of the present case the return filed by the assessee has been treated as non-est as it was not filed within the time stipulated under the Act. The submission that the return was filed voluntarily was not disputed by the ld. CIT-DR. However, it was his submission that since the return filed was non-est, the occasion to argue that it was a voluntary return was not relevant. On query addressing the argument that no addition was made on the basis of recorded reasons, he agreed, is not disputed. Similarly, the fact that the return had been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in March, 2015 and return from the very same sources of income stood already filed on 7.11.2012 wherein the TDS and self assessment tax upto the said date stood paid. It is also a fact pleaded on record that the assessee is not a habitual defaulter and this is one and only time wherein penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act or any other penalty has been visited upon the assessee. When a copy of the return filed on 7.11.2012 which has been treated as non-est is compared with the assessed income as available in assessment order dated 18.1.2016 passed u/s 143(3)/148 of the Act, it is seen that the only addition made is addition by way of a disallowance of deduction u/s 80C of Insurance premium amounting to Rs. 33,285/-. In the said background, in o....