9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate Tribunal when it held that when disclosure is made voluntarily, there is no scope of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act? (b) Since Clause "B" of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act casts the initial burden on the assessee to prove the essential ingredients of that clause and when there is a failure on the part of the assessee to discharge that burden, has not the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal committed an error of law in setting aside the order of the authorities below levying penalty? 2. It is seen from the facts narrated herein that the assessee herein agreed for an addition of Rs.28,56,884/-. The assessment was accordingly made. It is a matter of record that there was also a reassessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment, confronted with the fact that they could not prove their claim and there was no evidence, the assessee had offered the income for assessment. The Department claimed that when the assessee himself had conceded that a particular item of income had been concealed by him and offered such income for assessment, there is nothing left for the Department to prove the aspect of concealment. Thus, placing reliance on the decision reported in [1971] 79 ITR 63 (Delhi) (Durga Timber Works Vs. CIT), [1985] 153 ITR 376 (Mad) (H.V.Venugopal Chettiar Vs. CIT) and 251 ITR 99 (SC) (K.P.Madhusudanan Vs. CIT), the Assessing Officer confirmed the levy of penalty. 4. Aggrieved by this, the assessee went on appeal before the Commissioner of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion letter, at the time of assessment, since the parties had failed to respond to the notices, realising the difficulties in service at the distance of time at which the assessment was taken, the assessee agreed for an assessment on the amount claimed as expenses. 7. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court reported in [2010] 322 ITR 158 (CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (SC), learned counsel submitted that to attract penalty, the Revenue should prove that the claim made was not sustainable in law and that if the assessee had made a conscious concealment of the particulars of income, the Apex Court pointed out that in oder to expose the assessee to penalty, the Revenue should show that there was contumacious conduct on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
