Itta/526/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Ms.sania Mirza

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKURANDTHE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.526 of 2011 DATED:09-02-2012 Between:The Commissioner of Income Tax … Appellant And Ms. Sania Mirza … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKURANDTHE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.526 of2011 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 9.10.2009 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A, Hyderabad inI.T.A. No. 230/Hyd/2009, relevant for the assessment year 2004-05. 2. The assessee is a renowned professional international tennisplayer. She filed her return of income for the assessment year 2004-05declaring a total income of Rs. 94,605/-. Along with her return of income,she filed a statement of affairs wherein she disclosed that she hadreceived Rs.30,63,310/- as awards from the Government and from otherinstitutions. This amount was not offered to tax although it was disclosedin the statement of affairs along with the return. 3. The Assessing Officer processed the return under Section 143(1)of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and accepted the return ofincome. 4. Later on, the assessment was reopened by issuing a notice to theassessee and when the assessment was reopened, she voluntarilyoffered Rs.30,63,310/- for tax. Before the Assessing Officer, herAdvocate/Chartered Accountant stated that the amount was shown in thecapital account and was not shown as a capital receipt. But since theissue had arisen, it was being offered as taxable income. 5. The Assessing Officer accepted the amount as taxable income andlevied the tax accordingly. 6. However, in addition to levying tax, the Assessing Officer decidedto impose penalty of Rs.10,14,582/- on the ground that the assessee hadfurnished inaccurate particulars of her income and concealed herincome. 7. The view of the Assessing Officer was upheld by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). On further appeal, the Tribunalwas of the view that the assessee had not acted in a mala fide mannerand it could not be said that her actions were deliberate. It was in fact abona fide mistake made on her behalf by her Advocate/CharteredAccountant and there was no concealment of income by her nor wasthere a furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The amount had been clearlymentioned in the statement of affairs and the Assessing Officer hadinitially accepted the return, after processing it under Section 143(1) of theAct. It was accordingly held that it was not a case for imposition ofpenalty. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and find thatthere is nothing to suggest that the assessee acted in a manner such as tolead to the conclusion that she had concealed the particulars of herincome or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The admittedposition is that the amount of Rs.30,63,310/- was shown by her in thereturn. That being the position, it cannot be said that there was anyconcealment. There is no dispute about the fact that the amount wascorrectly mentioned and therefore, there is also nothing inaccurate in theparticulars furnished by her. The only error that seems to have beencommitted was that it was not shown as a capital receipt. But as soon asthis was pointed out, the error was accepted and the amount wassurrendered to tax. 9. In our opinion this is not a fit case for imposition of penalty. 10. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. 11. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 12. The miscellaneous application is also dismissed. 09-02-2012 pnb MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J