Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The appellant prays your honor to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing."

5. The fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee e-filed his return of income for assessment year 2012-13 on 18-07-2014 declaring gross income of Rs. 13,87,801/- before claiming deductions under sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the head Income from House Property at Rs 70,000/-thereby declaring net taxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- wherein the assessee claimed refund of Rs 54,810/- out of the prepaid taxes. The return was filed after time limit prescribed u/s 139(4) of the Act and was invalid return.

5.1 A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018, which was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the notices u/s 148, the assessee filed return of income on 09.06.2018 for the assessment year 2012-13. It is pertinent to mention here that in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act for A.Y. 2012- 13 filed by the assessee, taxable income has been declared at Rs.

14,09,150/- after declaring income from other sources at Rs 1,80,097/-, without claiming loss of Rs 70,000/- from house property and after claiming deduction under u/s80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed at Rs. 2,16,520/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 1,59,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- and for concealing of particulars of income of Rs. 1,21,350/-.

6. Aggrieved from the order of the ld. AO levying penalty, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised by the assessee, the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below:

ITA Nos. 543 to 547/JP/2024 Ajoy Sharma vs. DCIT "6.2 I have gone through the facts of the case, the penalty order and the submissions filed by the appellant. As per information available on record, during the year under consideration, the appellant claimed deductions under sections under sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively totaling to Rs.

4.1.1 The said explanation states that where a person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be false then it shall be deemed that particulars have been concealed.

ITA Nos. 543 to 547/JP/2024 Ajoy Sharma vs. DCIT 4.1.2 However, in the present case, the issue of failure on the part of the assessee does not even arise in as much as (kindly refer the table above) the assessee has with all truthfulness and simplicity, straightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions had been wrongly claimed, even before the notice could be issued. In this regard, notice u/s 133(6) (PB-3) was issued seeking information regarding deduction claimed u/s 80U only (however, no mention of deduction u/s 80C, 80D,80DD, 80DDB, 80GG). Still the assessee voluntarily choose to disclose the fact of erroneous claim of deduction u/s 80C, 80D,80DD, 80DDB, 80GG. Hence, the assessee cannot be said to have failed to offer explanation when no notice in that regard had been issued.