CIT v. Sania Mirza (AP.) (High Court) www.itatonline.org.
The assessee, a renowned professional
international tennis player, received an award of Rs. 30 lakhs. This was
disclosed in the statement of affairs filed with the ROI though not offered to
tax. The AO accepted the ROI u/s 143(1). He later reopened the assessment u/s
147 at which stage the assessee offered the said amount to tax. The AO &
CIT levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee had furnished
inaccurate particulars of her income and concealed her income. However, the
Tribunal cancelled the penalty on the ground that a “bona fide mistake” had
been made on her behalf by her Advocate/Chartered Accountant and there was no
concealment of income nor a furnishing of inaccurate particulars. On appeal by
the department to the High Court, held , dismissing the appeal:
There is nothing to suggest that the
assessee acted in a manner such as to lead to the conclusion that she had
concealed the particulars of her income or had furnished inaccurate particulars
of income. As the amount of Rs.30,63,310 was shown by her in the return, it
cannot be said that there was any concealment. As the amount was correctly
mentioned, there is also nothing inaccurate in the particulars furnished by
her. The only error that seems to have been committed was that it was not shown
as a capital (sic) receipt. But as soon as this was pointed out, the error was
accepted and the amount was surrendered to tax. This is not a fit case for
imposition of penalty.
No comments:
Post a Comment