Shri Lokesh Kaushal, Prop. Kaushal Service Station, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh. Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Chandigarh.
May, 01st 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH `B' CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND Ms. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No .186/ CH D/ 2014
Assessm ent Y ear : 2009- 10
Shr i Lokesh K aushal , Vs T he Inco me T ax Of f i cer ,
Pr op. K aushal Ser vi ce St at i on, War d 1( 2) ,
Indust r i al Ar ea, Chandi gar h.
Chandi gar h.
PAN : AC EPK 3701C
(Appellant ) (R espondent )
Appell ant b y : Shri Tej Mohan Singh
Respondent b y : Shri J .S.Nagar
Date of Heari ng : 17.04.2014
Date of P ronouncem ent : 28.04.2014
O R D E R
PE R SUSHMA CH OWLA, JM
The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of
the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh dated
21.01.2014 against the penalty order passed under section
271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( 'the Act' for short).
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. That the ld. Income Tax Officer has failed to appreciate the
facts and circumstances of the case and has thereby erred in
confirming penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing
inaccurate particulars of income.
2. The appellate order is devoid on any merits as the loss under
property income was claimed on the basis of TDS certificate
issued in the individual name instead of HUF.
3. The only issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of
penalty under section 271(1)(c)of the Act at Rs. 92,110/-.
4. The brief facts of the case are that in the return of income
filed for the captioned assessment year, the assessee had declared
l o s s o f R s . 2 9 7 , 6 7 3 / - u n d e r t h e h e a d ` i n c o m e f r o m h o u s e p r o p e r t y'
which was set-off against other incomes of the assessee. The
Assessing Officer noted during the course of assessment
proceedings that the said property did not belong to the assessee
individual but belong to his HUF and hence, the assessee was not
entitled to claim the set-off of loss from property in his hands.
The plea of the assessee was that in view of the TDS certificate
being issued in the name of the individual, the said claim was made
in the hands of assessee. During the course of assessment
proceedings, the assessee agreed for the addition on account of
loss and the Assessing Officer did not allow the benefit of TDS of
Rs. 81,600/- on the rental income. Penalty proceedings under
section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated against the assessee. In
the course of said penalty proceedings, the assessee claimed that
the said claim was made bonafidely as the TDS certificate was
issued in the name of the individual but the Assessing Officer was
not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and levied
penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs. 99,110/-.
5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not accept
the plea of technical mistake raised by the assessee and upheld the
levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
6. Shri Tej Mohan Singh appeared for the assessee and Shri
J.S.Nagar appeared for the revenue and put forward their
7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record.
The assessee individual had filed its return of income at Rs.
5,83,740/- after claiming loss under the head `income from
p r o p e r t y' a t R s . 2 7 9 , 6 7 3 / - . However, the said property did not
belong to the assessee individual but belonged to HUF of the
assessee and as such, the said loss from property was not allowed
in the hands of the assessee. The assessee claims that it had made
the said claim in his hands as the TDS certificate was issued in the
name of the assessee individual. However, on the mistake being
pointed out by the Assessing Officer, the assessee further claims
that it had declared the said loss in the hands of the HUF.
However, credit of TDS was not allowed in the hands of the
assessee individual. The plea of the assessee before the authorities
below was that the said mistake was a technical mistake on account
of the TDS certificate being issued in the name of the individual
and there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in
the hands of the assessee individual. We find merit in the said
plea of the assessee that in view of the peculiar circumstances
where the TDS was deducted in the hands of the assessee
individual and in order to claim the benefit of the said TDS, the
income relating thereof was offered in the hands of the assessee
individual, although the income there-from belonged to the HUF of
the assessee. In the abovesaid circumstances, where the assessee
had, under a bonafide mistake claimed the said loss arising from
income from property in his hands, we find no merit in the levy of
penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer
is directed to delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of
the Act. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised b y the assessee
8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th April,2014.
( T.R.SOOD) (S USHMA CHO WLA)
ACCO UNTANT ME MBER JUDICIAL ME MBER
Dat ed: 28 t h April,2014
The Appell ant, The Respondent, The C IT(A), The C IT,DR.
Assi st ant Regi st r ar
IT AT ,CH D.