TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 224
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....05,86,110/- which included 50% of the rental income from the House Property jointly owned by the assessee along with his wife Ms. Alpana Chatterji in Singapore. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices under section 143(2) was duly served on the assessee on 22.08.2016 and under section 142(1) on 11.10.2017. Based on the query raised by the AO that the assessee has not declared Rs. 6,21,652/- under the head "Income from Other Sources" and 100% of the rental income from "House Property" in Singapore amounting to Rs. 23,71,076/-, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 30.07.2017 in which the above said incomes were included. The AO completed the assessment by making the addition as per the income declared by the assessee in the revised return of income. The relevant observations of the AO are extracted below: "3. On verification of the ITS details it was observed that the assessee has not offered Rs. 6,21,662/- under the head income from other sources and Rs. 23,71,076/- under the head House property. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has submitted revised return of income filed on 30.03.2017, wherein he has offered the above amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s interest income and differential rental income. 5. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the assessee himself has offered 100% of the rental income through a revised return during the course of assessment proceedings and therefore the assessee cannot now claim to be aggrieved by the order of the lower authorities. 6. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The assessee, who is residing in Singapore, has become a resident and ordinarily resident during AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 and thereby offered his global income to tax in India. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO the AO held that Rs. 6,21,652/- under the head "Income from Other Sources" and Rs. 23,71,076/- being the differential 50% of rental income has to be offered to tax. The assessee filed the revised return of income including the above incomes declared an income of Rs. 12,28,70,870/-. The AO assessed the income as per the revised return of income. From the perusal of the above facts we notice that the assessee himself has offered the interest income as per Form 26AS and the differential rental income in the revised return. We notice that the AO has accepted the additional incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) who confirmed the levy of penalty by holding that - "8. The submissions of the appellant have been carefully considered. It is observed that the Assessing Officer levied Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of addition of incomes, which were not offered to tax in the original return of income filed on 30.08.2015. Subsequently, the case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny assessment by issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act on 22.08.2016. After receipt of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant revised his Return of Income on 30.03.2017, offering to tax Income from Other Sources of Rs. 6,21,662/- and Income from House Property of Rs. 23,71,076/-. 8.1. Assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 08.12.2017, assessing the total income at Rs. 12,28,70,870/- by making the above additions to the total income, declared by the appellant in the original return of income. While completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the appellant." 11. The ld AR submitted that the assessee filed the original return of income based on available information at that pertaining to his overseas income. The ld AR further submitted that the assessment year in India and Singapore are different and therefore the assessee got information pertaining to his correct overseas income only later. The ld AR also submitted that the assessee once he obtained the proper details filed the revised return of income during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore the ld AR argued that there is no intention on the part of the assessee to conceal any income and accordingly the ld AR prayed that the penalty be deleted. 12. The ld. DR submitted that assessee declared the differential rental income and interest income only during the assessment proceedings through revised return of income. The ld DR further submitted that if the case had not been selected for scrutiny the assessee would not have offered the differential income to tax. The ld DR therefore argued that the lower authorities were correct in levying penalty for concealment of income. 13. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re is a time lag in getting the correct details of his Singapore income. Accordingly, to file the return of income in time, the assessee has filed the original return with the details best available at that point in time. This is substantiated by the fact that the assessee has declared excess salary income and that in the revised return rectified the same by filing the correct income from salary. From the perusal of the facts peculiar to assessee's case, in our considered view there is no willful intention on the part of the assessee to conceal the income since the assessee has filed the revised return of income rectifying all the errors in the original return of income. It is also relevant to note that the revised return of income was filed by the assessee on 30.03.2017 and the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 08.12.2017 where the AO has assessed the income as per the income declared in the revised return by the assessee i.e. revenue has accepted the income declared in the revised return. The below observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) is relevant in this context - "P....