9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d return of income on 31.10.2008 declaring the income of Rs. 14,09,950/-. Subsequently revised return was filed on 26.03.2010 admitting the income of Rs. 42,63,990/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act on 22.09.2010 accepting the income returned by the assessee in the revised return. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that assessee filed revised return offering 'on-money' receipt of Rs. 28,34,240/- to tax only after the course of investigation done by the Investigation Wing. Therefore, AO was of the view that prim facie assessee has concealed /filed inaccurate particulars of income. In response to the penalty notice, the assessee vide letter dated 10.03.2011 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich was accepted, therefore the penalty should not have been levied. The Departmental Representative vehemently supports the order of the lower authorities in levying the penalty. He further submits that but for the investigation assessee would not have admitted additional income, therefore there is a concealment of income and thus, the AO is justified in levying penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following decisions:- 1 K P Madhusudhanan Vs.CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC) 2 P.Govindswamy Vs. CIT [2001] 116 Taxman 155 (Mad.) 3 G.C.Agarwal Vs. CIT [1990] 186 ITR 571 (SC) 4 F.C.Agarwal v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 408(Guj.) 5 M.Sajjanraj Nahar Vs. CIT [2006] 155 Taxman 536 (Mad.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no material at all to indicate there are payments of ONMONEY in the transaction. Apart from the statement recorded neither in the assessment proceedings nor in the penalty proceedings any material has been sighted to show that the assessee is guilty of concealment of income. Apart from the above it was admitted position that the property in question was purchased jointly and collectively sold and automatically the property was purchased by the A.O.P. comprising 1. S. Tamarai kannan 2. M. Kumaravelu. 3. E. Thiagarajan. 4. R. Arumugham 5. S. Jayapal and was also SOLD by the same A.O.P. If at all there was any money payment as alleged it could have been in the hands of the A.O.P. and not in the hands of the individual assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out of vexed litigation could be treated as bona fide. Therefore, no penalty could be levied for concealment. This decision of Hon'ble Madhya Preadsh High Court has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal reported in [2000] 251 ITR 09 (SC). Head note of the decision of Hon'ble Apex court reads as follows:- "The assessee had originally filed returns showing meagre income. When, after action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a notice under section 148 was served on him, he filed revised returns showing higher income. Eventually, assessment orders were passed and the returns submitted regularised under section 148. In penalty proceedings under section 271, the asses-see claimed that he h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
