9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiated only after an assessment order has been made which finds such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty was permissible under the law on the date on which the offence of concealment of income was committed, that is to say, on the date of the offending return Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment, as without such a finding of concealment, there can be no question of imposing any penalty. In the assessee’s case, the AO has not given any finding in assessment order that the assessee had concealed any income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. He had simply accepted the returned income u/s 148. Hence assessee’s case is covered by the decisions ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income of ₹ 51,53,610/- which comprised business income from two concerns namely M/s Fern N Petals- E Commerce and M/s. Fern N Petals. After examining the details/information on record, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment in terms of order u/s 148/143(3) dated 30.12.2011 at a total income of ₹ 51,53,610/- as declared by the assessee in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2.1 Since no return of income for the assessment year under consideration u/s 139(1) or 139(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was filed by the appellant, the income declared and assessed at ₹ 51,53,610/- in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 was treated by the Assessing Officer as concealed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the department, that the assessee has disclosed her taxable income for the A.Y. 2008-09 and has paid the taxes. 4. In appeal before the First Appellate Authority, the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the imposition of penalty but reduced the quantum to 100% of the tax allegedly sought to be evaded. 5. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5.1 The Ld. AR submitted that Income returned in response to notice u/s 148 of ₹ 51,53,610/- was accepted assessed as it filed i.e. without any addition . He further submitted that the accounts were duly audited u/s 44AB and tax audit report was obtained within due date i.e. on 28-Aug-2008 and the AO had accepted the ITR u/s 147 as per books audited u/s 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... significant dates it was clear that not only did the assessment proceedings start before the expiry of due date u/s 153(1) but return was also submitted in compliance thereof before the expiry of the prescribed time limit u/s 153(1). The Ld. AR also submitted that Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals 335 ITR 259 (Del) in Para 15 and 16 has held that concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by the assessee has to be in the income-tax return filed by it. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has to be construed strictly. He submitted that unless it is found that there is actually a concealment or non-disclosure of the particulars of income, penalty cannot be imposed. The Ld. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on recorded by the assessing officer that assessee had concealed income with reference to return of income filed by him in response to notice u/s 148. Hon ble Supreme Court in Varkey Chacko v. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 885 has held that a penalty for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income can be imposed only when the assessing authority is satisfied that there has been such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. A penalty proceeding, therefore, can be initiated only after an assessment order has been made which finds such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty was permissible under the law on the date on which the offence of concealment of income was committed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ariation should be as a result of concealment. It is not the case of assessing officer that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been imposed on certain additions made to the returned income. Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/S S.A.S. Pharmaceuticals (supra) while deciding the issue levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in paragraph 15 has held as under: 15. It necessarily follows that concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee has to be in the income tax return filed by it. There is sufficient indication of this Court in the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I Vs Mohan Das Hassa Nand 141 ITR 203 and in Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd (supra), the Supreme court h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
