9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... never subjected to search or survey, Revenue could also have relied on explanation 5 or 5A as the case may be of section 271 to levy penalty. Even though the income has been disclosed in the return filed subsequently, section 271(1)(c) would permit the Assessing Officer to levy penalty equal to or not exceeding three times the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of concealment of particula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for our consideration : (A) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of ₹ 77,25,000/levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act? (B) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law and on facts by not appreciating the facts that the Assessing Officer had levied penalty under specific clause (c) of explanation 4 of section 271(1)(c) of the Act? 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Kirit Dayabhai Patel v ACIT case Tax appeal no.1181 of 2010 with 1182 of 2010 to 1185 of 2010 decided on 3122014 holding that if no addition is made in furtherance to the post search return, the same has to be treated as the one filed u/s139 and no penalty levied in such a case. We deem it proper to observe that the section271(1)(c) explanation 5A i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was found. 5. For the assessment year 20112012, the assessee had filed return of income declaring total income of ₹ 2.74 crores. The Assessing Officer while accepting such income without any additions, decided to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee failed to submit accurate particulars of the income. It was in this background the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
