2012 (9) TMI 1015

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g the penalty u/s. 27(1) (c) of ₹ 2,60,000/- levied by the A.O. 3. The assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing of Formaldehyde, trading of Methanol and job work activities of manufacturing of Formaldehyde, filed its return of income showing income of ₹ 40,40,740/- on 01-08-2008. The assessee, thereafter filed another return of income on 25-06-2010 showing income of ₹ 47,87,940/-. In the revised return filed on 25- 06-2010 the assessee had shown additional income of ₹ 7,47,197/- which was not offered to tax in the return of income filed on 01-08- 2009. The reasons stated by the assessee for the revised income is reproduced hereunder for reference:- There was survey u/s 13 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 008 declaring income at ₹ 40,40,740/- without including the subsequent disclosed amount of ₹ 7,47,197/-. The learned CIT(A) further considering the rival submissions and for the reasons stated herein above upheld the penalty levied by the learned AO u/s 271 (1) ( c ) read with Explanation 1. 6. The learned AR submitted before us that the director of the appellant company had declared this amount of ₹ 7,47,197/- during the post search proceedings in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act on 25-11-2008. He further submitted that this amount was part of the total declaration of ₹ 75,00,000/- declared by the director of the appellant company. Therefore, the benefit of section 271AAA of the Act should be extended to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Unaccounted income Rs.7,47,197 And that the return of ₹ 47,87,940 filed on 25.6.2010 included that disclosure comprising ₹ 7,47,197. It was argued that as subsequent to search the appellant had offered disclosure in his return, which was accepted in the order passed u/s. 143(3) r. w. s. 153A (1) (b) dated 30.11.2010, no penalty was leviable in view of provisions of section 271AAA (2). 8. From the above facts, it cannot be disputed that disclosure was not made during the search proceedings. The director of the appellant company had disclosed total amount of ₹ 75,00,000/- for the whole group including on behalf of the assessee company at the time of search proceedings and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X