9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the assessee is accepted no penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against Revenue. - ITA. No. 1837/Hyd/2013 - - - Dated:- 7-5-2014 - Shri B. Ramakotaiah, A. M. And Saktijit Dey, J.M.,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sri P. Raviseshagiri Rao For the Respondent : Shri B. Yadagiri ORDER Per Saktijit Dey, J. M. This appeal of the department is directed against the order dated 16-9-2013 of the CIT (A)-VI, Hyderabad deleting penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07. 2. Briefly the facts are, the assessee an individual is a doctor by profession. For the assessment year under dispute, she filed her return of income on 31- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer passed an order on 18-6-2009 imposing penalty of Rs.4,89,570/- u/s 271(1) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved of the order imposing penalty assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A). In course of proceeding before CIT (A), it was submitted that on the suggestion of departmental officers the assessee admitted additional income of Rs.14,37,000/- though no specific material was found in survey. It was submitted, though assessee could be able to explain discrepancies but to purchase peace with the department has offered additional income. It was also submitted that the revised return not only was filed within the period prescribed under sec. 139(4) but income declared was also accepted by the Assessing Officer while com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt the contention of the Assessing Officer and hold that the additional income admitted by the appellant is not proved from the angle of concealment. Hence, the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), for the year under reference, is not sustainable and the penalty of Rs.4,89,570/- levied by the Assessing Officer, is ordered to be cancelled. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. The learned DR has contended before us that assessee field the revised return declaring additional income only as a result of survey. Referring to the statement recorded from the assessee during penalty proceedings, he submitted that the assessee has admitted that investments made by her are not recorded in the books of accounts which prove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271(1)(c ) can only be considered on the basis of income tax return. The allegation of the Assessing Officer that but for the survey, assessee otherwise would not have disclosed the income cannot be the sole basis for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1) . May be explanation 5 and 5A may extend the scope of concealed income identified in search operation but there is no such provision/explanation u/s 271(1)(c ) for proceedings u/s 133A so as to consider the income admitted in course of survey subsequently declared in the return of income in due course, as concealed income. It may be noted that in case of Suresh Chandra Mittal vs. CIT (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view held by the Hon ble M.P. High Court that when income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
