9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ld. AR on this very issue. Further, we perused the decisions relied on by the ld. AR. Case of CIT Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals [2011 (4) TMI 888 - DELHI HIGH COURT] to be followed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.91/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 1-2-2019 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao, AM And Shri Vikas Awasthy, JM For the Appellant : Shri Sanjeev Ghei For the Respondent : Shri Santosh Jadhav And Ms. Dabhedkhar ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-13, Pune, dated 25-10-2016 in relation to the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Briefly stated, relevant facts include, that the assessee is a Doctor by profession. She filed the return of income declaring total inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove , the Ld . CIT(A) erred in not considering the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd . v/s Commissioner of Income Tax-II (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9772 OF 2013, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18389 of 2013) in which Hon ' ble Supreme Court stated that under the explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act , It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings . The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal . 4. Before us, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ACIT Vs. D.J. Builders and Developers (supra) relying on the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals 335 ITR 259 has held as under : 18. Thus, in view of the Hon ble Delhi High Court, the provisions of sec.271(1)(c) should be interpreted strictly. If the ratio of the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court is applied to the facts of the present case, the assessee cannot be imposed penalty u/s.271(1)(c), since it has already disclosed the surrendered amount as its income in the return of income. The decision rendered by ld.CIT(A) is in accordance with the ration laid down by Hon ble Delhi High Court. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the decision taken by ld. CIT(A). 6.1 S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271. Obviously, no penalty can be imposed unless the conditions stipulated in the said provisions are duly and unambiguously satisfied. Since the assessee was exposed during survey, may be, it would have not disclosed the income but for the said survey. However, there cannot be any penalty only on surmises, conjectures and possibilities. Sec. 271(1)(c) has to be construed strictly. Unless it is found that there is actually a concealment or non-disclosure of the particulars of income, penalty cannot be imposed. There is no such concealment or nondisclosure as the assessee had made a complete disclosure in the IT return and offered the surrendered amount for the purposes of tax. 11. Expln.5 and 5A are also an exception to the rule t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
