9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vashi Dhugga for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. ‑ This appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the assessee against the order, dated 26-11-2007, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh (in short "the Tribunal") in IT Appeal No. 191/(Chd.)/2007, relating to the assessment year 2003-04. 2. The following substantial question of law has been claimed for determination of this Court: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was right in law in setting aside the order of the CIT (Appeals), and restoring the order of the Assessing Officer whereby penalty of Rs. 78,750 has been impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 34B of the Act, subject to no penal action against her. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and made addition of an amount of Rs. 2,70,000 vide order dated 8-3-2006, besides ordering for charging interest thereon, under section 234B and initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. During the course of penalty proceedings, it was observed that the surrender of the additional income by the assessee was not voluntary and in good faith rather she was compelled by the circumstances to do so. It was further observed that the assessee had not even declared any additional amount of income surrendered during the course of survey. The Assessing Officer, after considering v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and on the strength of a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Amalendu Paul [1984] 145 ITR 439/[1983] 13 Taxman 325 and judgment of this Court in CIT v. Suraj Bhan [2007] 294 ITR 481/159 Taxman 600 and an order, dated 31-5-2007, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), in ITO v. Rohit Nanda IT Appeal No. 192 (Chd.) of 2007, relating to the assessment year 2003-04 argued that the penalty was not exigible on the assessee. Learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the Tribunal. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and find no merit therein. The Tribunal, in para No. 9 of its order has recorded as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rajesh Chawla v. CIT (supra) has held that in every case mere surrender would not foreclose the action for concealment of income. In the instant case, since the assessee did not truly disclosed his income which was surrendered, so it was a case of concealment, liable to the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restore that of the Assessing Officer." 12. Further, the judgments of the High Courts and the order of the Tribunal on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the assessee do not help the assessee's cause, inasmuch as those cases were decided on individual fact situation involved therein where a finding came to be reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
