9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 734 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additional income was declared in survey u/s 133A - assessee had disclosed additional income on the basis of alleged receipts which were not reflected in the books of accounts - date of filing of return u/s 139(1) had not expired - proof of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - HELD THAT - Additional income was offered by the assessee in his return of income and the same has been accepted by the AO in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. CIT(A) while deleting the penalty has noted that on the date of survey, the date of filing of return u/s 139(1) had not expired and assessee had also not filed his return of income upto the date of survey. The fact of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income can be established only with reference to the income declared in the return of income. In the present case, since the income declared by the assessee in the return of income has been accepted, there cannot be the case of concealing the particulars of income or furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income . The case of Dr. Ranjana, the wife of assessee, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the additional income declared out of the same survey was deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal 2019 (2) TMI 352 - ITAT PUNE . - Decided against revenue.
Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act based on additional income disclosed during a survey operation. Analysis: The appeal filed by the Revenue concerns the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on additional income disclosed by the assessee during a survey conducted under section 133A of the Act. The assessee, an individual and a doctor by profession, disclosed additional income of ?1,49,59,870 for the assessment year 2012-13 during the survey. The Assessing Officer (AO) framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, determining the total income at ?2,18,19,100, after disallowing certain expenditure. The AO, in the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) dated 15.05.2015, held that the additional income was declared by the assessee solely due to the survey and imposed a penalty of ?46,22,600. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty in the appeal. The grounds raised by the Revenue questioned the justification of deleting the penalty, arguing that the additional income was based on the survey operation revealing discrepancies in the daily collections from the hospital. Additionally, the Revenue cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MAK Data P. Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax-II regarding voluntary disclosure not absolving the assessee from penalty. The arguments presented by both sides were considered, with the Revenue highlighting that the additional income was disclosed only due to the survey. The Tribunal, after hearing the submissions and examining the facts, noted that the assessee had offered the additional income during the survey, which was accepted in the assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that the concept of "concealment of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" is determined based on the income declared in the return. Since the income declared by the assessee was accepted, there was no case of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the Tribunal mentioned a similar case involving the wife of the assessee, where the penalty on additional income from the same survey was deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench. Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of the penalty. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, affirming the decision to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
|
