9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1095X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration forming the foundation of the penalty has not the one which was added by the AO beyond the income returned. Assessee has voluntary declared the income in the survey, and the return of income was accepted in the assessment without making any addition on that score. We hold that such income cannot constitute the basis for the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We, therefore, held that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is perverse to the facts on the record and bad in law. Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T. A. No. 724/Asr/2019 - - - Dated:- 2-3-2023 - DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA For the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Sudershan Gupta through L/H 10 DTR 0184 (CL PB pg. 38 to 41), wherein it has been held that Revenue having not accepted the terms of surrendered in toto. Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made on the basis of surrender. 3. Heard, the rival contention perused the material on record and case cited before us. It is admitted fact that the assessee has made a surrender of income to the tune of Rs.31 lacs subject to no penal action and it is also admitted fact that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has accepted the return income as assessed income. 4. On identical facts, the Pune Bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT v. East West Developers in ITA No. 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the AO has not noticed any difference between in the return income and the assessed income, the citations relied upon by the department are not applicable to the facts of the instant case as income under consideration forming the foundation of the penalty has not the one which was added by the AO beyond the income returned. In our view, that the assessee has voluntary declared the income in the survey, and the return of income was accepted in the assessment without making any addition on that score. We hold that such income cannot constitute the basis for the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We, therefore, held that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is perverse to the facts on the record and bad in law. 6. Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
