TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 298
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng 30.9% of Rs. 8,24,805) levied on tax allegedly sought to be evaded on the amount of interest earned on income tax refund." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm engaged in construction activity as promoter & builders. The assessee-firm filed return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.9.2013 declaring total loss of Rs. 6,34,608/-. The assessee during the assessment year 2012-13 completed a project approved under Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and out of the TDR received, TDR admeasuring 541 sq. mtrs was sold by the assessee during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration the balance TDR, admeasuring 541 sq. mtrs. was shown as closing WIP and all the expenses incurred for 80lS as well as non....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the Assessing Officer against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing through video conference, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case assessee received refund amounting to Rs. 70,66,735/- and Rs. 8,24,805/- included in the amount relates to the refund interest. Refund voucher and Form 26AS does not specify any interest amount against the refund related information which should be taxed in the year under consideration. Therefore, the assessee did not offer any amount to tax for the assessment year 2013-14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed written arguments which extracted as under: "4. Submissions before the Honorable ITAT a) Track record - Appellant is enclosing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant's side. It transpires, the intimation dated 10-1-12 was lost sight of since, no any financial transaction took place on 10-1-12 in AY 2012-13. Rather, refund transaction took place only on 26-6-12 i.e. in AY 2013-14 and related form 26AS for AY 2013-14 did not contain any information of interest on refund at all. A copy of the refund demand draft dated 26-6-12 amounting to Rs. 70,66,735 is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-4. d) Non-addressal of the key proposition as to non-concealment - As submitted from time to time, the information of interest payment vide 143(1) intimation was available already with the learned AO. As such, there is no any concealment of particulars if income from Appellant's side in this case. Ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). Copy of the Honorable Chandigarh Tribunal (Supra) decision is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-7. g) Prayer - Appellant submits, for bonafide errors of accounting relating to information coming from I-T department itself, there ought not to be levied penalty for concealment of particulars of income. Appellant's boafide belief, Appellant's overall conduct and endeavour also deserves due consideration. Kindly allow the appeal of the Appellant and delete the penalty and oblige." 4.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee's case is fully supported by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad in the case of Jayanti Super Construction ( Previously : Super Construction Co.)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ehalf of the assessee that it is large taxpayer alleged and concealments is disproportionately miniscule which is an indicator that it is a bonafide error. We find merit in the circumstances narrated on behalf of the assessee. A bonafide error or mistake does not necessarily invite penalty proceedings in every case. It will not be out of context to recollect the observation of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Hindusthan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) wherein it was held that penalty cannot be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. In the absence of any ITA No. 1637/Ahd/2017 Jayanti Super Construction vs. DCIT Asst. Year 2014-15 intentional omission of the taxable income from the return of income as reasonab....