9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reating the voluntary disclosure made in response to notice u/s 148 as having been done in good faith and to avoid litigation ?. In this case the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 1998-99 on 13.11.98 declaring an income of ₹ 77,520/- inter-alia declaring income from house property and salary earned in the capacity of a partner in a partnership firm. Subsequently on an information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee had acquired a property, i.e. Booth No.107, Sector 28, Chandigarh on 8.1.1998 for a consideration of ₹ 5,06,250/- which was undeclared, the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 148 on 29.9.2005 for making an assessment. In the meanwhile the assessee had expired and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... band and being an illiterate housewife chose to surrender the amount but to no penal action. The Assessing Officer vide his order dated 30.3.2006 imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to ₹ 1,44,752/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the imposition of penalty, against which the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order dated 11.7.2007 directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to ₹ 1,44,752/- while holding that the act of voluntary disclosure made by the legal heir in the return of income filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act was done in good faith and to avoid litigation. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the part of the legal heir by making return of income inter-alia including the impugned amount only demonstrates her bonafides and willingness not to prolong any litigation with the Revenue. Such a situation cannot be compared with a situation whereby an assessee discovers an earlier omission or wrong statement to justify the filling of subsequent return of income. Even when enquiries are carried out by the Revenue and an assessee accepts the result of enquiries, and on that basis discovers a mistake of a wrong statement in the return of income earlier filed, such an assessee still has an option in law to demonstrate and explain the reasons for such omission or wrong statement so as to avoid imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hemently argued that in this case an offer to surrender was not voluntary and bona fide and, therefore, the Tribunal has erred at law while deleting the penalty imposed upon the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have heard Ms. Urvashi Dugga, learned counsel for the revenue and have perused the record. We find that the Tribunal has found as a matter of fact that in response to notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, the legal heir of the assessee (i.e. wife) herself filed the revised return of income at ₹ 5,87,520/- which includes the unexplained income of the assessee. As the assessee had died, the legal heir being unaware of the sources of investment filed return of income including the impugned amount only to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
