9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from penalty. The voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In the light of the law laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of Suraj Bhan [2006 (4) TMI 107 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ] has held that penalty levied is not justified because there was no concealment of income nor furnishing any inaccurate particulars thereof. The facts of the case in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable and will not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. On due consideration of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that learned ITAT has not appreciated the evidence of the AO and the order passed by the Appellate Authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery No.56, Shri Gurjeet Singh Chhabra disclosed unaccounted income of ₹ 2.00 crore in the name of himself and his wife. Thereafter, on 11.02.2011, a search took place at the premises of Transword Furtichem Group and certain papers relating to assessee were found. On 14.04.2012, the assessee revised the return for AY 2010-11 in which additional income from long term capital gain of ₹ 4,18,79,397/- and short term capital gain of ₹ 72,78,532/- was shown. 4. According to the assessee, such capital gain was not offered in original return because land at Survey Nos.278 and 279 at Village Nipania ad-measuring 8293 sq. mt. and 3396 sq. mt., which was owned by Shri Yunus and Shri Manmohan Singh Bhasin, sold to the assessee went i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch income from capital gains was neither shown in the return for FY 2010-11 nor shown in FY 2011-12 and, therefore, it is clear that such income was meant to be concealed. The revised return filed by the assessee will not save the assessee from consequences of intentional filing of false or incorrect returns for FY 2010-11 and by affirming the penalty, dismissed the appeal. 6. Learned Appellate Tribunal considering the fact that notice under Section 153-C of the Act was issued on 04.01.2013 and in compliance thereof, the assessee filed the return of income on 19.02.2013 showing same income as shown in the revised return income on 14.04.2012 i.e., much before the date of notice issued under Section 153-C of the Act. It was also observed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... simple reason that for the relevant assessment years, 2005-06 & 2006-07, no material was recovered during the search. Rather, the assessee added ₹ 21,65,932/- in the return filed pursuant to notice under section 153A. That amount was not relatable to any sum recovered or article seized. Therefore, the question of adding or not adding amounts after the search and falling within the mischief of Explanation 5 to Section 271 (1) (c) cannot arise in the facts and circumstances of this case. 29. Based on the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that Explanation-5 cannot be relied upon by the Revenue in the relevant assessment years under consideration before this Court, and in the absence of recourse to Explanation-5, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that learned ITAT has not appreciated the evidence of the Assessing Officer and the order passed by the Appellate Authority. In the case in hand, the return was revised much prior to the date of issuance of notice under Section 153-C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has no-where recorded his satisfaction to the fact that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished any inaccurate particulars of such income. Thus, we are of the view that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned ITAT nor any substantial question of law is arising in this appeal. The income tax appeal filed by the Revenue has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
