9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 82 - HC - Income TaxPenalty under Section 271(1)(C) - concealed income as detected by the Department during the survey - ITAT deleted the penalty - notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued, finding no other alternative the assessee surrendered income to avoid penal consequences - Held that - Since admittedly the revised return for the said assessment year was filed by the assessee before issuance of notice under section 148, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal requires no interference. The judgement in CIT v. Smt. Sova Bajoria (1997 (12) TMI 88 - CALCUTTA High Court ), relied on by Mr.Bhowmik is inapplicable as therein the assessee had filed the second revised return after the assessment proceedings had begun, unlike the case in hand, where the proceedings under section 148 were yet to begin.The appeal is not admitted. - Decided against revenue
Issues:
Admission of appeal on substantial question of law regarding penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The case involved the Department seeking admission of an appeal on the substantial question of law related to the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The facts revealed that the assessee initially filed a return showing a total income of Rs. 2,04,380, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, a survey under Section 133A detected undisclosed investment of Rs. 30 lakhs by the assessee, who admitted the source of investment as undisclosed income from business activities. The assessee then filed a revised return showing a total income of Rs. 32,04,350, including the additional income of Rs. 30 lakhs. A notice under Section 148 was issued, and the assessee filed a further return, leading to an assessed total income of Rs. 32,25,090. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated, resulting in the imposition of a 100% tax penalty on the undisclosed income. The order imposing the penalty was challenged by the assessee before the CIT(A), which allowed the appeal. The CIT(A) emphasized that the assessee disclosed the additional income voluntarily before the notice under Section 148 was issued, reflecting a bona fide intention and no positive evidence of concealment was found beyond the survey disclosure. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee had disclosed all facts and income before the notice under Section 148, and no concealment or inaccurate particulars were established during the assessment, citing relevant judicial precedents. The Tribunal's decision was based on the assessee's voluntary disclosure of additional income before the notice under Section 148, concluding that no concealment or inaccurate particulars were proven during the assessment. The Tribunal highlighted the Revenue's burden to establish conditions for penalty imposition and the absence of concealment or inaccurate particulars in the return of income. The judgement emphasized the significance of assessment proceedings and return of income over survey proceedings for penalty levy under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The dismissal of the appeal was justified based on the timing of the revised return filing before the notice under Section 148, distinguishing it from cases where revised returns were filed after assessment proceedings had commenced. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to uphold the deletion of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was supported by the timing of the revised return filing and the absence of evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars during the assessment proceedings. The judgement underscored the importance of establishing conditions for penalty imposition and the relevance of return of income in determining penalty liability under the IT Act.
|
