9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessment years (A.Y.) 1998-99 to 2000-01 vide orders of the Assessing Officer all dated March 31, 2009. Since the facts and the issue involved in all the appeals are identical, hence the same are taken together for disposal by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from I. T. A. No. 93/Mum/2012. I. T. A. Nos. 93 to 95/Mum/2012 for assessment year 1998-99 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on December 21, 1998, declaring the total income of Rs. 1,69,900. Subsequently, the assessee filed his revised return on May 30, 2003, declaring the additional income of Rs. 7,50,000 being share of profit from firm M/s. R. K. Overseas, which was claimed as exempt i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e pleaded that the income in the revised return was offered by the assessee voluntarily and suo motu and, therefore, it was not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income, however, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had filed the return subsequently to the detection of the operation of bogus firms by the chartered accountant and, therefore, the revised return filed by the assessee was not voluntary but was under constrain of detection and follow up action by the Department. He, therefore, held it to be a case of concealment of income and levied the penalty of Rs. 2,49,450 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In first appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) confirmed the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said to be a case where any concealment of income is detected against the assessee inviting penalty action under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, it cannot be said to be a case of concealment of income by the assessee so far as the assessment proceedings under section 147 are concerned. The assessment proceedings under section 147, as discussed above, were carried out just to validate the invalid revised return and not on account of any detection of escapement of income. In view of the above, we do not find it as a case fit for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The penalty so levied by the lower authorities is, therefore, ordered to be deleted. I. T. A. Nos. 94 and 95/Mum/2012 for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
