9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). 2. The basic issue raised by the appellant is that in the present facts, the Tribunal ought to have set aside the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the non disclosure of additional income of Rs. 40 lakhs in the return of income filed for Assessment year 2001-02 was due to inadvertence/mistake. The mistake was rectified/corrected by filing revised return of income disclosing the additional income of Rs. 40 lakhs much before the Assessment Order was passed. 3. On 28 June 2006, a search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act was taken against the appellant-assessee by the Revenue. During the course of search proceedings, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. The revised return of income disclosing the aforesaid amount was filed only after the Assessing Officer brought the non-disclosure of income to the notice of the appellant-assessee. In the above view, though the maximum penalty imposable is Rs. 41.26 lakhs, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 14 lakhs upon the assessee. 5. In further appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the finding of the Assessing officer imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT(A) inter alia records in his order that the omission to include the additional income in the return of income filed in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act was not bonafide. This was for the reason that the same was only offered to tax on the assessee being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty that the appellant paid further tax which was payable on the additional income of Rs. 40 lakhs. Moreover, the immunity available from penalty under clause 2 to Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was forsaken by the appellant not honouring the statement made by him under Section 132(4) of the Act. This was on account of not having disclosed the same in the return of income filed only consequent to notice under Section 153A of the Act. We find that all the Authorities have concurrently come to the finding of fact that non disclosure of additional income of Rs. 40 lakhs in the return of income as originally filed consequent to notice under Section 153A of the Act was not bonafide. 8. We find that a concurrent view on facts has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
