9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Case No. 10 of 1999(R) has been registered on receipt of reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and following question of law has been referred to this Court: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(C) even though the income disclosed during search was deliberately not decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finality, wherein assessing officer found asessee's undisclosed income of Rs. 20 lakhs and held that the assessee failed to disclose the facts in the return and thereby concealed the income of Rs. 20 lakhs, and imposed the penalty of Rs. 12 lakhs under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act of 1961. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the fact of declaration of undisclosed income by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned counsel for the Revenue. We are of the considered opinion that purposefully the penalty has not been made automatic in the regular assessment proceedings and, therefore, it has been provided separately under Section 271of the Act wherein it has been provided that during the course of any proceeding any assessing officer finds concealment of income, he may proceed under Section 271 of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t January, 1991. It appears from the assessment order itself that during the course of assessment it was said on behalf of assessee that the said declaration was only because of the pursuation of the searching officer and not because of assessee had any undisclosed income to be declared during the said year. Therefore, it is not a case where the assessee was not with any defence. His said defence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
