9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Delhi High Court SAS PHARMACEUTICALS [ 2011 (4) TMI 888 - DELHI HIGH COURT] andSMT. ANITA KUMARAN [ 2017 (3) TMI 390 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] it is clearly evident that any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income has to be determined from the return of income filed by the assessee. Further proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, is a separate proceedings than from the assessment proceedings and the omission or error i.e. concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income should come out specifically from the return of income filed by the assessee before the Department. There is no scope for any guess work or surmises or any hypothetical situation for imposing penalty u/s.271(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n no survey action on the assessee, the income of ₹ 2.50 crores would have escaped assessment. Therefore, the income declared in the return filed after the date of survey, cannot be considered as voluntary‟. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty without appreciating the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) wherein offer of surrender of amount after detection by Assessing Officer in search conducted was not considered as being voluntary in nature and the Apex Court justified levying of penalty u/s.271(1)(c). 4. The appellant prayed to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete or raise any g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the return of income filed, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be levied. The argument of the assessee did not find favour with the Assessing Officer and penalty was levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the unaccounted income of ₹ 2.50 crores at the rate of 100% which worked out at ₹ 76,87,169/-. 4. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) in his order vide Para No. 5.3.2 observed that the Assessing Officer relied heavily on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). Thereafter, it was analysed that the facts in this referred case was substantially different since in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra.), the surrendered income was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), the very basis for imposing penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was analysed and the principle emerged was that the alleged concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee has to be determined from income tax returned filed by the assessee. 6. Similarly, the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT-Chennai Vs. Smt. Anita Kumaran, 2017-(IT2)-GJX-0083-MAD wherein the decision in the Case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra.) was considered and was distinguished on facts. Based on the facts of the case of CIT-Chennai Vs. Smt. Anita Kumaran (supra.), the Hon ble Madras High Court has held as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifically from the return of income filed by the assessee before the Department. There is no scope for any guess work or surmises or any hypothetical situation for imposing penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that the amount of ₹ 2.50 Crores was disclosed in the return of income by the assessee and it was accepted by the Department. Taking the totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that in this case of the assessee, it is not a fit case for imposing penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. In view thereof, the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) does not call for any interference and relief provided to the assessee is hereby sustained. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
