9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (10) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsequence of settlement arrived at the filing of return Under Section 148 was merely a valid procedure to give the assessment a valid shape. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Tribunal is right in the eye of law in upholding that penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act in respect of income of ₹ 11,000/- as surrendered for the purchase of peace of mind and to avoid litigation in view of the settlement arrived at Under Section 132 of the Income tax Act ? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there are positive material on record as parallel accounts which go to show that surrendered income represents income of particular year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment be framed on the basis of the figure now disclosed and that the minimum penalty under Section 271(1)(c) may be levied on the assessee. Consequently the assessments were framed under Section 148 on the basis of the return submitted and the minimum penalty was levied. The assessee submitted an appeal to the A.A.C. who came to the conclusion that the penalty levied is not justified. Against this order the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that in the instant case the evidence was collected as a consequence of search and the said income was not disclosed in the books of accounts and was out side the books of accounts. It was in these circumstances that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been submitted without there being any evidence in possession of the department. If some documents have been seized or there is a positive evidence on the basis of which it could be said that there was concealment of income as in the present case where after the search and seizure even the order under Section 132(5) was passed, the position would stand on different footing. It cannot be said to be a case of mere submission of revised return voluntarily. The assessee had no option after the department has gathered the evidence by way of search and, therefore, the admission of the assessee by surrendering such concealed income by filing the revised return would be sufficient evidence for the purpose of levy of penalty. 8. Delhi High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is a detection of case of concealment of income by the department and some positive evidence in respect there of comes in possession of the department then the subsequent disclosure by the assessee would not mitigate the offence which has already been committed of not showing correct income in the return. The offence is committed at the time when return is submitted. The subsequent act of disclosure will not make the action on the part of the assessee in making the disclosure as voluntary, since the assessee has himself admitted the income and revised the return after detection, the Incomes Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding levy of penalty. The Income Tux Tribunal has found as a fact that there was concealment of inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
