Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: TDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: due date for vat payment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: cpt :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT RATES :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: form 3cd :: empanelment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
« From the Courts »
  Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 DCIT vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma (ITAT Mumbai)
 ACIT vs. Jawaharlal Agicha (ITAT Mumbai)
 CIT vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co (Bombay High Court)
 Makes further amendments to Notification no. 157/90-Customs dated 28th March, 1990 regarding temporary admission under the ATA Carnet
 Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI - 2/2016-Customs
 ransfers Of Hon’ble Members Of The ITAT (September 2016)
 M. G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 Haryana State Road & Bridges Development Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (P&H High Court)
 Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, B-303, Sukh Sagar Apartments, 52, IP Extension, Delhi 110 092. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Circle-36(1), New Delhi.
November, 18th 2014
                                  `F' : NEW DELHI
                      DELHI BENCH `F

                          SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                SHRI I.C. SUDHIR,

                         ITA No.
                       Assessment Year : 2008-

Shri Pramod Kumar Singh,       Vs.    Assistant Commissioner of
B-303, Sukh Sagar                     Income Tax,
Apartments,                           Circle-
52, IP Extension,                     New Delhi.
Delhi ­ 110 092.
     (Appellant)                          (Respondent)

               Appellant by     :    Shri Tapas Kumar Misra, Advocate.
               Respondent by    :    Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr.DR.


      This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of
learned CIT(A)-XXVII, New Delhi dated 29th May, 2013 for the AY 2008-

2.    The only ground raised by the assessee is against the levy of
penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at

3.    At the time of hearing before us, it is submitted by the learned
counsel that earlier the assessee was in the employment of M/s
Morepen Laboratories Ltd. from whom the assessee has received full
and final settlement amount of `12,94,652/-. As per Assessing Officer,
out of this full and final settlement, the assessee has disclosed less
income of `7,80,716/-. He, therefore, made the addition for the same.
The assessee did not file appeal against the above order because as
per the TDS certificate issued by M/s Morepen Laboratories Ltd., the
                                   2                         ITA-4919/D/2013

taxable salary was disclosed at `9,44,652/-.    That subsequently, the
assessee asked M/s Morepen Laboratories Ltd. about the working of
the payment of full and final settlement at `12,94,652/- then it was
gathered that it included the leave encashment, LTCs encashment,
accumulation of superannuation amount etc. which are not taxable.
Thus, the working given by them in the TDS certificate was wrong and
assessee's belief that full and final settlement includes various items
which are not taxable was correct.       The learned counsel for the
assessee has produced the working of full and final settlement in his
paper book at page 25. He fairly admitted that the above working was
not given before the lower authorities because it was received by the
assessee subsequently.     He, therefore, submitted that the penalty
levied under Section 271(1)(c) may be cancelled.

4.    Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of
authorities below and he stated that the addition has become final as
the assessee has not filed appeal against the said order. In the penalty
proceedings, without giving any details before the lower authorities,
the assessee cannot plead at this stage that the amount is not
chargeable to tax. He, therefore, submitted that the penalty levied by
the Assessing Officer may be sustained.      He alternatively submitted
that if at all the assessee's request is accepted, then the matter needs
to be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer because the paper
which is claimed to be the working of full and final settlement was
never produced before the Assessing Officer and he did not get any
opportunity to examine the same.

5.    We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides
and perused relevant material placed before us. After considering the
arguments of both the sides and the facts of the case, in our opinion, it
would meet the ends of justice if the orders of authorities below are set
aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer.
                                     3                           ITA-4919/D/2013

Though in the quantum proceedings, determination of income has
become final, in the penalty proceedings, the assessee has a right to
point out that the income for which addition is made is not chargeable
to tax. Therefore, in our opinion, it would be in the interest of justice to
allow one more opportunity to the assessee so that he can establish
before the Assessing Officer that the addition which has been made by
the Assessing Officer is in fact not chargeable as income from salary.
Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer
and direct him to allow adequate opportunity of being heard to the
assessee.    The assessee is also directed to produce necessary
evidence and explanation before the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the
Assessing Officer will pass the order in accordance with law.

6.    In the result, the appeal of the assessee is deemed to be allowed
for statistical purposes.
      Decision pronounced in the open Court on 14th November, 2014.

                   Sd/-                                   Sd/-
           (I.C. SUDHIR)                              AGRAWAL)
                                                (G.D. AGRAWAL)
         JUDICIAL MEMBER                        VICE PRESIDENT

Dated : 14.11.2014

Copy forwarded to: -

1.    Appellant    : Shri Pramod Kumar Singh,
                     B-303, Sukh Sagar Apartments,
                     52, IP Extension, Delhi ­ 110 092.

2.    Respondent : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
                   Circle-36(1), New Delhi.
3.    CIT
4.    CIT(A)
5.    DR, ITAT

                               Assistant Registrar
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Internet Marketing Website Marketing Internet Promotion Internet Marketing India Website Marketing India Internet Promotion India Internet Marketing Consultancy Website Marketing Consulta

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions