AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal arises from order dated 30.07.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC, Delhi.
In this case, the assessee had not filed a returned of income for AY 2012-13, even though she had received a salary of Rs.72,20,138/- during the year under consideration. It was seen that TDS was deducted u/s 192B of the Act on this salary income. Since no return of income was filed, hence the Ld. AO initiated reassessment proceedings and thereafter in response to notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2019, the assessee filed her return of income on 06.09.2017 by declaring total income of Rs.37,61,770/-. It is seen from the records that the assessment was completed on this returned income but penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated.
Thereafter, the Ld. AO imposed the penalty for not filing a return of income through which the taxable income of the assessee could be seen. The Ld. AO levied a penalty of Rs.10,08,917/-.
The assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A), where on account of a delay of 589 days in the filing of the said appeal, the appeal was not admitted and dismissed inlimine. At this stage, it needs to be mentioned that the assessee is a Japanese National who was earlier working with Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). After 31.03.2015, the assessee returned back to Japan and also updated her new e-mail id etc. on the Income Tax Portal. It is seen that due to this shifting from India to Japan the tax proceedings could not be handled with due care.
The assessee has now approached the ITAT through her Counsel and has agitated the impugned penalty through four grounds of appeal.
Before us the Ld. AR argued with the help of written submissions and informed that the assessee was under the impression that since tax at source was deducted on the salary income hence there was no requirement for filing any return of income. It was the submission that the entire quantum of receipts were duly reflected in Form 26As and TDS had been deducted as per law. It was the submission that the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act was duly accepted as such by the Ld. AO. Thereafter, the Ld. AR dwelt on the reasons for delayed filing of first appeal and prayed that a precipitate decision may be taken at this level since the assessee was now residing in Japan and was in no position to diligently pursue tax matters in India. It was a further submission that there was no question of concealment of income in a case where the returned income itself has been duly accepted and was always visible in Form 26AS. The Ld. AR relied on several authorities in support of this contention.
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below and stated that had it not been for reassessment proceedings then the assessee would never have filed any return of income.
We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. Admitted facts in this case are that the entire quantum of salary income was subjected to TDS and these facts were duly visible in Form 26AS. Thereafter, the assessee filed a return of income and the same was accepted as such by the Ld. AO. It is felt that this could be at best a case of negligence and ignorance of law but not of concealment of income. This is more so because ultimately, as per record, no extra taxes were worked out against the assessee, apart from the TDS already made. Accordingly, this is a fit case where the penalty proceedings deserve to be quashed, and we direct so.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.