9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2016, ITA No.2391/Chny/2016 And ITA No.2392/Chny/2016 - - X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The Ld. representative for the assessee further submitted that the assessees explained before the Assessing Officer during the penalty proceeding that the gold jewellery sold to M/s AMN Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. was acquired by way of gifts from relatives and parents during the marriage and other functions over the year. The assessees also filed revised return before initiating penalty proceeding disclosing all the jewellery and offered the same for taxation. According to the Ld. representative, the revised returns filed by all the assessees were accepted by the Assessing Officer and no addition was made. In those circumstances, the Assessing Officer, after considering the decision of Indore Bench of this Tribunal in Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liance on the judgment of Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra), took one of the possible views, the same cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. MAX India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282, the Ld. representative submitted that when the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views on the basis of the judgment of Apex Court, the Administrative Commissioner cannot substitute his view by holding that the dropping the penalty proceeding is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 6. Sh. T. Banusekar, the Ld. representative for the assessees, further submitted that except in the case of Smt. H. Pradeepa in I.T.A. No.2392/Chny/2016 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rriage and other occasions from the parents, relatives and friends. However, according to the Ld. D.R., they could not substantiate the claim before the Assessing Officer. Since the assessees have offered the cost of jewellery as income for taxation, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer found that there was concealment of income, hence, he initiated penalty proceeding by issuing show cause notice. In the course of penalty proceeding, according to the Ld. D.R., on the basis of the judgment of Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra), the Assessing Officer found that it is not a fit case for initiating any penalty. According to the Ld. D.R., when there was difference of income reported and assessed, there was presumption of con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of income by way of revised return does not absolve the assessees from the mischief of penalty consequences as provided under the Income-tax Act. 10. We have carefully gone through the proviso to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which reads as follows:- S.271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. - (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person- (b) ..... ... ... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... .... (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, or h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled the revised return after the search operation in the case of AMN Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. and offered the value of the jewellery for taxation, whether penalty proceeding can be initiated against the assessees? This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the assessees offered the income voluntarily and offered the same for taxation and the source of acquisition of such jewellery was also explained before the Assessing Officer as the gifts from relatives, friends and parents, which are accepted, there is no need to proceed further with penalty proceeding. As rightly submitted by the Ld. representative for the assessees, the Assessing Officer placed his reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra). 13. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
