9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 68 ITR 705 and CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 9 would apply to this case which is before the amendment/introduction of Explanation 1 clause (B) to section 271(1)(c) ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, when a non-taxable amount has been offered for assessment even before issue of notice under section 148, due to the inability of the assessee to adduce proof, penalty could be levied by the Assessing Officer without recording any satisfaction and establishing mens rea that the amount offered is taxable income ? 3. Whether the Tribunal has not committed legal error in not adverting to the affidavit by the mother-in-law of the assessee that the deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs and the accrued interest thereto in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith a view to purchase peace and avoid prolonged litigation and the Assessing Officer has not recorded a finding that the income so offered by the assessee is a taxable income and as the assessee neither concealed his income, nor furnished inaccurate particulars, the Appellate Tribunal was not correct in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer levying penalty. 7. The main points raised in the above questions are, (i) whether the assessee has deliberately concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars ; and (ii) whether the assessee has acted bona fide and honestly filed the revised returns with a view to purchase peace. 8. It is relevant to mention that in similar circumstances, this court by a judgment dated February ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is court in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705. He submitted that the assessee had agreed to the additions to his income referred to hereinabove to buy peace and it did not follow therefrom that the amount that was agreed to be added was concealed income. That it did not follow that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income is undoubtedly what was laid down by this court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. [1987] 168 ITR 705 and that, therefore, the Revenue was required to prove the mens rea of a quasi-criminal offence. But it was because of the view taken in this and other judgments that the Explanation to section 271 was added. By reason of the addition of that Explanation, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng in prejudice, the said proceedings need no interference (vide judgment dated February 1, 2006, in T. C. No. 112 of 2000, etc., batch (M. Sajjanraj Nahar v. CIT [2006] 283 ITR 230 (Mad)). 11. With regard to the third question, the Appellate Tribunal has rendered a finding of fact that the Revenue had established the reasons for additions and proved that the addition was on account of concealed income, and we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Appellate Tribunal. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. We do not see any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, finding no question of law, much less ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
