9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original return filed by the assessee u/s.139(1) of the Act. That however, while survey was conducted which resulted in levy of the penalty, during that time no separate satisfaction was recorded by the AO before initiation of penalty proceedings. This is also not legally permissible as observed by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok S. Agarwal Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [ 2018 (6) TMI 1678 - ITAT PUNE] . It is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty from the hands of the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.474/PUN/2019 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2019 - Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22.09.2009 declaring total loss of ₹ 2,40,76,016/- in which all illegal expenditures have been claimed as a deduction. Being satisfied that the assessee has wrongly claimed the expenditure within the meaning of Explanation 1 below Section 37(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act after recording his satisfaction for doing so. In the meantime, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 29.11.2012 declaring total income of ₹ 92,08,310/- which includes the admitted inadmissible expenditure of ₹ 19,05,861/-. In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee submitted that the revised return filed on 29.11.2012 may be treated as return filed in response to not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be any imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 5.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated that the satisfaction was recorded for levying penalty by the Assessing Officer at the time of framing original assessment. However, the trail of facts are clear that the penalty has been levied as a matter of consequence to the survey action u/s.133A of the Act and thereafter, unearthing some inadmissible expenditures, but at that point of time of survey, the Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction before levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has passed his decision only on the basis of the satisfaction recorded as per the original return filed by the assessee u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income all those inadmissible expenditures which were earlier taken as deduction. The assessee has also paid requisite taxes on such income as filed in the revised return. The Ld. DR before us has accepted these facts on record. Meaning thereby, there is no loss to the revenue from the conduct of the assessee. 8. Now, the question which arises whether penalty could be leviable u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and such penalty is leviable either for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income ? 8.1 In the case of the assessee, while filing revised return, the assessee has disclosed his entire income in totality and have paid taxes and therefore, it cannot be said that there is concea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer accepted income returned in revised return and accordingly passed assessment. Subsequently, Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act holding that discrepancies noted during course of survey action under section 133A of the Act and consequent disclosures of additional incomes, attracted penalty. The Tribunal had held in this case that the assessee had furnished valid revised return, which was accepted by Assessing Officer without pointing out a single inaccuracy and without making any further additions in assessment and in such circumstances, it was not a fit case for levy of penalty. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the revised return was accepted and taxes paid accordingly. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
