IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B AHMEDABAD Before Shri D.K. Tyagi, Hon ble Judicial Member and Shri A.K.Garodia, Hon ble Accountant Member ITA No.1319/ Ahd/2007 Assessment Year:2004-05 Date of hearing:20.6.11 Drafted:27.6.11 Somabhai Nanabhai V/s. Income Tax Officer, Parmar, E-1, Shakti W ard-7(1), GEB park, Darodia, Dist. Building, Race Course Baroda 391 310 Circle, Baroda 390 007 PAN No. AFHPS9457D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by :- W ritten Submission Respondent by:- Shri Samir Tekriwa l, SR-DR ORDER PER D.K. Tyagi, Judicial Member:- This is assessee s appeal against order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-VI, Baroda in appeal No.CAB/VI-204/06-07 for assessment year 2004-05. 2. as has taken following ground:- 2. Commissioner(Appeals) erred in confirming part of penalty originally levied at Rs.22811/-. Your appellate submits that penalty is not justified and prays that same be deleted. 3. brief facts of case are that assessee has filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,54,005/- which was processedu/s.143(1). Subsequently, case was selected for scrutiny and scrutiny assessment ITA 1319/Ahd/2007 A.Y. 2004-05 Somabhai N Parmar v. ITO Wd-7(1), BRD Page 2 u/s.143(3) was completed determining total income at Rs.3,77,965/-. During course of assessment proceedings Assessing Officer observed that assessee had declared only Rs.16,000/- as income from MIS under head income from other sources . details obtained from assessee revealed that assessee had omitted to include following interest income:- 1. Interest income from IPCL credit society Rs. 841/- 2. Income from MIS Rs.43,200/- 3. SB account interest Rs.14,178/- 4. Income from varistha pension bima yojana Rs. 9,000/- 5 Additional interest on PF Rs. 8,818/- Rs.76,037/- assessee also admitted to said omission and agreed to addition. penalty proceedings were accordingly initiated on this amount and penalty of Rs.22,811/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 was levied. 4. Before Ld. CIT(Appeals) assessee submitted that income from MIS included inter alia following:- 1. Income from MIS for self and wife Rs.32,000/- 2. Income from MIS of son Rs.11,200/- 3. Income from Varishta pension bima yojana Rs. 9,000/- It was further submitted that income from MIS in name of son of Rs.11,200/- pertains to assessment year 2005-06 and income of Rs.9,000/- from Vasistha Pension Bima Yojana was also receivable for first time in Aug. 04 i.e. relevant for assessment year 2005-06. It was further argued that income of Rs.11,200/- and Rs.9,000/- do not pertain to year under appeal and therefore not liable for penalty u/s.271(1) of Act. In respect of other income it was claimed that said omission was inadvertent and there was no intention on part of assessee to conceal particulars of income. ITA 1319/Ahd/2007 A.Y. 2004-05 Somabhai N Parmar v. ITO Wd-7(1), BRD Page 3 5. Taking into consideration this submission of assessee Ld. CIT(Appeals) partly allowed appeal of assessee by observing as under:- I have gone through contentions of appellant, assessment order as well as penalty order. case records were also called for and matter was also discussed with concerned Assessing Officer. It was seen from case records that bank passbooks of various MIS accounts in name of self, wife and son were submitted during course of assessment proceedings. copy of Varistha Pension Bima Yojana of LIC was also submitted. These documents clearly indicate that income of Rs.11,200/- from MIS in name of appellant s son and income from Varistha Pension Bima Yojana of LIC were not relevant for A.Y. 2004-05 and thus contention of appellant is found to be correct. In my considered view therefore amount of Rs.20,200 (Rs.11,200 + Rs.9,000) is not exigible for penalty u/s.271(1) . In respect of balance amount of Rs.55,837 (Rs.76037 Rs.20200) Assessing Officer is justified in levying penalty u/s.271(1) as particulars in respect of such income were not disclosed by appellant. appellant concealed particulars of such income and no reasonable cause was made out for such omission. Neither any plausible reason was submitted for such omission. Assessing Officer is therefore directed to rework penalty amount on concealed income of Rss.55,837/-. 6. At time of hearing assessee himself appeared before us and relied on written statement filed by him. 7. Ld. Departmental Representative on other hand relied on order of Ld. CIT(Appeals). 8. After hearing both parties and perusing record and written submission of assessee we find that Assessing Officer has levied penalty on concealed income of Rs.76,037/.- and Ld. CIT(Appeals) gave relief to assessee by holding that on amount of Rs.20,200/- penalty is not leviable as this amount do not pertain to year under appeal. In respect of balance amount of Rs.55,837/- he was of opinion that Assessing Officer was justified in levying penalty as assessee concealed particulars ITA 1319/Ahd/2007 A.Y. 2004-05 Somabhai N Parmar v. ITO Wd-7(1), BRD Page 4 of income and no reasonable cause was made out for such omission. Before us also assessee has failed to give any plausible reason for this omission. Therefore we are not inclined to interfere with order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) and same is hereby upheld. This ground of assessee s appeal is dismissed. 9. In result, assessee s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 30/06/2011 Sd/- Sd/- (A.K.Garodia) (D.K. Tyagi) (Accountant Member) (Judicial Member) Ahmedabad, Dated : 30/06/2011 *Dkp Copy of Order forwarded to:- 1. Appellant. 2. Respondent. 3. CIT(Appeals)-VI, Baroda 4. CIT concerns. 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, /True copy/ Deputy/Asstt.Registrar ITAT, Ahmedabad Shri Somabhai Nanabhai Parmar v. Income Tax Officer-Ward-7(1)