TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 792
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve erred in law and on facts in imposing Section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs. 1,61,472/-. 3. Mr.Naik invited my attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion reading as follows: "5. All the grounds of appeal are against levying of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant made the following submissions: "In the case of assessee a penalty Vis. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 1,61,472/- on the total addition of Rs. 6,87,129/- which include salary income of Rs. 5,97,679 and deduction claimed u/s.80DD of Rs. 89,450/-. Explanation with regard to Salary Incomers. 5,97,679: > The assessee, Shri Manikyam Guruvula who is in GMR Polytechnic College has filed his Original Retur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....> As TD5 on the above said income is already been deducted and reflected in Form 26AS, kindly delete the penalty on the income earned from salary. Explanation with regard to Deduction u/s.80DD Rs. 89,450/-: > While filing the revised return, the assessee wrongly claimed deduction u/s.80DD whereas the assessee is actually having deduction U/s.80D for an amount of Rs. 15,000/-. > During the scrutiny proceedings also the assessee has not claimed the deduction u/s.80Dfor an amount of Rs. 15,000/- paid for medical insurance with LIC. > The claim of Rs. 89,450/- u/s.80DD is an erroneous one and not intentional. > Hence, kindly delete the penalty on the above amount of Rs. 89,450/-." 5.1. The A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs of income has been furnished in the revised return, the penalty proceedings were initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) and the assessee has not appeared for the proceedings. > Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 1,61,472/- is levied on the following items > Difference in salary reported in original return and revised return Rs. 5,97,679 > While completing the penalty proceedings, the AO did not consider the fact that the TDS of Rs. 1,52,908/- was deducted on salary income of Rs. 13,35,589/- and the same is reflected in Form-26AS, which is in the full knowledge of the department and which does not amount to neither concealment of income nor furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. > As per section 192 TDS shall be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se Property Loss: Month EMI Interest Principal Apr-15 28000 21114 6886 May-15 28000 21439 6561 Jun-15 28000 20693 7307 Jul-15 28000 21211 6789 Aug-15 28000 21051 6949 Sept-15 28000 20315 7685 Oct-15 28000 20601 7399 Nov-15 28000 15786 8214 Dec-15 28000 20377 7623 Jan-16 28000 20314 7686 Feb-16 28000 18944 9055 Mar-16 28000 20175 7825 Total 336000 246020 89980 Note: The above calculations are supported by loan statement. > Though the assessee has requested for considering the original return during the assessment proceedings the AO has considered the revised ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....revised return filed was a mistake Occurred inadvertently. The second contention of the AR of the appellant was that the department was already in possession of the Form No. 26AS, hence there is no concealment. Both claims made by the AR of the appellant are not acceptable. In this case, the appellant deliberately filed revised return by claiming the refund even though the appellant was in full knowledge of the salary income earned and reflected in the salary certificate furnished. On factual aspects of the case, as argued by the AR of the appellant, the appellant had claimed lesser deduction of Rs. 50,000/- under head income from house property, Rs. 50,000/- u/s. 80C and Rs. 15,000/- under section 80D of the IT Act while filing th....