9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also admitted to the same - the Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty – decided in favour of revenue. Validity of revised return - Whether the appellant having filed the revised return of income voluntarily and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was exigible - The assessee admitted the concealment and, consequently, filed a revised return wherein the admitted undisclosed income as well as the undisclosed stock was disclosed in the return - it cannot be considered as a return of income having been filed voluntarily – thus the assessee is liable for penalty – decided in favour of revenue. Following precedents - Whether the Tribunal was justified in contradicting from its own findings given in the cases relied upon before it - Tribunal was justified in applying the law to the facts and circumstances of the present case - the questions of law and the decisions are necessarily based on the facts and circumstances of each of the cases - the said question of law is answered with reference to and in terms of the facts and circumstances of the relevant cases - therefore when the facts in two cases are different, applying the cited decision to another case would be highly erroneous – ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty proceedings were concluded by ordering a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of a sum of Rs. 3,58,000. Aggrieved by the said order of penalty, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, who held that the minimum penalty leviable would be Rs. 3,58,116 as against the penalty levied for Rs. 3,58,000 and, hence, increased the penalty by Rs. 116. Accordingly, the penalty order was confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee. This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the levy of penalty in the absence of recording of satisfaction within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) before initiation of the proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the penalty even though the discrepancy alleged was on March 22, 1999 (date of survey) relating to the assessment year 1999-2000 and the impugned penalty was levied for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isfaction when in an order of assessment or reassessment a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings is made. Hence, the contention of the appellant that recording of a satisfaction is absent in the instant case is wholly without reason. In terms of section 271(1B), the satisfaction being a deemed satisfaction, the question of recording of satisfaction within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) does not arise for consideration. Accordingly, question No. 1 is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 2 is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty relating to the assessment year 1999-2000 when the penalty was levied for the assessment year 1995-96, when the alleged discrepancy was on March 22, 1999. In the course of the proceedings, various materials have been unearthed. The assessee was asked to explain the same. He replied admitting the discrepancy and has offered the undisclosed income. In particular reference to question No. 12 which reads as under : "Question No. 12 : As per the profit and loss account and the balance-sheet filed by your firm, the total closing stock of ornaments as on March 31, 1996, is Rs, 13,61,468 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he discrepancy was unearthed on the date of survey, the assessee has admitted to the discrepancy for the year 1995-96. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, question No. 2 is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 3 is as to whether the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was exigible when the assessee has filed the return of income voluntarily. When the survey was conducted, it was brought to the notice of the assessee with regard to the discrepancies. The assessee admitted the concealment and, consequently, filed a revised return wherein the admitted undisclosed income as well as the undisclosed stock was disclosed in the return. The assessee has not only declared higher value of closing stock but has also increased the quantity of closing stock, namely, gold. Under these circumstances, it is evident that but for the survey being conducted, the same would not have been detected. In view of the deliberate action of the assessee in concealing the income, the proceedings under section 271 were conducted. We do not find any error committed by the authorities in imposing the penalty. The penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
