9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order to avoid litigation and buy peace of mind, the income was offered by the assessee. It is a fact that the income declared during the course of survey was included in the return of income filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act the AO had accepted the return of income filed by the assessee and no addition was made therein. In such a situation, we relying on the decision of CHETAS CONTROL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. [ 2019 (3) TMI 1632 - ITAT PUNE] and for similar reasons are of the view that there is no question of levying penalty on account of concealment on the assessee. Hence, we direct to delete the penalty levied by the AO and which was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29,57,090/-. The return of income was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 22.10.2012 wherein on verification of certain purchase bills it was found that the purchases of certain parties were not verifiable. The statement of Mr. Kaid Lokhandwala, one of the partners of the assessee firm was recorded wherein he admitted to disclose additional income of ₹ 19,10,720/- on account of bogus purchases. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 of the Act dt.12.13.2013 was issued and served on the assessee. In response to which assessee filed return of income declaring total income of ₹ 48,68,827/- which included the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before us and has raised the following grounds : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Honorable CIT (A) - 5, Pune erred in confirming the levy of penalty of ₹ 6,45,0001- under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case and the legal position. The appellant hereby prays that the penalty levied under section 271 (1) (c) may please be deleted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in not appreciating the fact that the learned AO initiated penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the I T Act in a causal manner without issuing a proper notice stati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) The appellant has offered to tax the income declared during the course of Survey Action and the same has been accepted by the Income Tax Department. Therefore, is no difference in the Returned Income and the Income as assessed by the Income Tax Department b) The appellant has paid the entire tax on the additional income offered to tax during the course of survey action before the issue of notice u/s 148 of the I. T. Act. The appellant hereby prays that the penalty levied under section 271 (1) (c) may please be deleted. 4. Similar grounds have been raised in ITA No.433/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2007-08. 4.1. Before us, at the outset, Ld.A.R. submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, supported the order of lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that in the present case during the survey, assessee had admitted to disclose additional income of ₹ 19,10,720/- on account of bogus purchases. The perusal of statement recorded during the course of survey also reveals that it was stated that assessee firm had made actual purchases from the market for which it had received the bills from the parties and had also made payments through account payee cheques but since assessee was unable to prove the genuineness of the purchases to the ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
