9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing detection of concealed income during the re-opening of the assessment absolves the penalty of assessee under Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in deleting the levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 39,65,561/-? 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that cogent reasons have been given for imposition of penalty against the assessee under Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the assessee furnished return of income of Rs. 1,45,40,720/- on 20.03.1977 but he did not disclose deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs in the Bank of Tokyo, New Delhi Branch on 12.05.1976 which has been in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tified in holding that there is no concealment of income and, therefore, penalty could not have been imposed under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act of 1961 and, therefore, was not justified in deleting the levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 39,65,561/-. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that in fact the very initiation of proceeding under Section 271(1)(C) for imposition of penalty itself was wholly without jurisdiction because of the reason that in the final assessment order dated 24.03.1992, the Assessing Officer has not recorded any finding of concealment of any income by the assessee rather say, the Assessing Officer has accepted all the contentions of the assessee and recorded specific finding that the reconciliation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty proceeding unless that revised return is rejected by the Assessing Officer upon the finding that in the revised return the assessee has added the income merely to cover up some concealed income. Otherwise also, the concealment cannot be inferred because of addition of the income only. 5. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the final assessment order dated 24.03.1992. A bare perusal of the brief assessment order dated 24.03.1992, which has been passed after setting aside all the earlier orders by the appellate authority and in view of the remand order passed by the appellate authority, there appears that no adverse finding has been recorded against the assessee with respect to the concea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all pay, by way of penalty. Therefore, Section 271(1) requires satisfaction of Assessing Officer in the course of any proceeding with respect to the concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the income. It appears that the Assessing Officer, in the proceeding, for the first time, under Section 271(1)(C), may have initially understood that the "intention" of the Assessing Officer was to initiate the penalty proceeding then he has further made it obvious that such intention has been recorded in the assessment order and, therefore, accordingly notice under Section 271(1)(C) was issued to the assessee. We do not find either intention of the Assessing Officer or recording of satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
