9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason for levy of the penalty was that the assessee had included in the return of income the additional income only on account of survey u/s. 133A. Thus in the present case, it is not furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as in the income tax return the particulars of income have been duly furnished and the surrendered amount of income was duly reflected in the income tax return and therefore it cannot be said that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income - there cannot be any penalty only on surmises and possibilities - in favour of assessee. - ITA No 1196/Ahd/2010 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2012 - SHRI D. K. TYAGI, SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI JJ. Appellant by : Mr. T. Shankar, Sr. D.R. Respondent by : Mr. A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here been no survey, the assessee would not have declared the income. A.O. relied on the decision in the case of Dharmendra Textile 219 CTR 617 (SC) where it was held that concealment need not be willful. He, therefore, concluded that the disclosure of Rs.7,15,000/- made by the assessee consequent to the survey and the undisclosed income of Rs.16,642/- that was confirmed by CIT (A) was concealed income and accordingly imposed penalty of Rs.2,19,493/-. Aggrieved with the penalty order of A.O. the assessee carried the matter before CIT (A). 4. Before CIT (A) it was submitted that the assessee had filed return of income on 31-10-2005, which was within the time prescribed u/s. 139(1) disclosing therein the total income of Rs.9,56,200/- which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey u/s.133A.He therefore strongly relied on the order of A.O. He therefore urged that the order of A.O. be upheld. On the other hand the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee had disclosed the income admitted at the time of survey, in the return of income filed u/s.139(1) and the same has been accepted. The additions made by the A.O. during the course of assessments have been substantially deleted by the appellate authorities. The only variation in the returned income and the assessed income is of Rs.16,642/-. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 335 ITR 259 (Del.) for the proposition that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when the assessee discloses pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see has made a complete disclosure in the income tax return and offered the surrendered amount to tax. In such a case it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed income or there was non disclosure on the part of the assessee so as to attract penalty. It is a settled law that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) have to be construed strictly. No penalty can be levied unless the conditions stipulated in the provisions are duly and unambiguously satisfied. We are of the view that there cannot be any penalty only on surmises and possibilities. In the case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals (supra) the Hon ble Delhi High Court has held as under:- There could not be any penalty only on surmises, conjectures and possibilities. Section 271(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
