9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD] and Muninaga Reddy [ 2014 (2) TMI 82 - ITAT BANGALORE] wherein deleted the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). Also in the case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals [ 2011 (4) TMI 888 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held where income surrendered by assessee during survey had been shown by it in its regular income-tax return filed within prescribed time, penalty could be imposed. CIT(A) has followed the above decisions and deleted the penalty on the declared income in search. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty on the balance disputed income. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A), who partly deleted the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(C). The grounds raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. - ITA No. 205/Ahd/2022 - - - Dated:- 17-5-2023 - Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sarju Mehta, A.R. For the Revenue : Shri Atul P andy, Sr.D.R. ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Revenue as against the appellate order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f amount confirmed by the CIT(A) i.e. Rs.1,84,08,097/-. It is also seen that the AO had levied penalty on the confirmed addition of Rs.4,08,0971- as well as disclosed income of Rs.1,80,00,000/- during the course of survey u/s.133A of the Act and subsequently declared in the return of income filed u/s.139(1) of the Act. In fact in the assessment proceeding at Para 5, the AO had determined the suppression of sales figure of Rs.1,46,64,689 only. But the AO did not make any addition on account of suppression of sales because the appellant had already disclosed a sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/- which was much higher than the amount determined by the AO herself. Further, I find that the AO during the penalty proceedings had not given any specific findings regarding how the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars of income for the year under consideration. It is important to mention here that the director of the appellant company had given statement u/s.132(4) of the Act dated 12.01.2010 and had declared income of Rs.1.80 crores for A.Y.2010-11 and disclosed the said amount in the return of income filed u/s.139(1) of the Act on 07.10.2010. Since, the date of filing of return of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claration of income after, effect of] - Assessment year 2008-09- Assessee alongwith one 'E' developed a layout of house site - Competent Authority conducted a survey under section 133A upon 'E' on 11-11-2009- Consequent to survey, assessee declared his share of income from joint venture at Rs. 81 lakhs - In return of income filed for assessment year 2008- 09 on 9-6-2010, assessee apart from other income also declared aforesaid income of Rs. 81 lakhs as income from business - Assessing Officer accepted said income and passed assessment order - He also levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on plea that but for survey operations under section 133A assessee had declared income of Rs. 81 lakhs and, therefore, he had concealed particulars of income to extent of Rs. 81 lakhs Whether since assessee had made a complete disclosure in return of income and offered surrendered amount for purposes of tax, which was accepted and brought to tax, there could be no question of treating assessee as having concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Held, yes -Whether, therefore, there was no justification for imposition of penalty under section 271( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tent. 4.1. The Ld. Sr. D.R. Shri Atul Pandey appearing for the Revenue supported the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer and requested to uphold the same. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel Shri Sarju Mehta appearing for the assessee supported the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted before us that the survey action in the present case was held on 12.01.2010, before the completion of the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2010-11 and the Director of the assessee company declared a sum of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- as the income of the assessee company. The assessee company filed its Return of Income and also paid appropriate taxes on the declared income of Rs. 1,80,00,000/-. Thus, there is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. Thus the deletion of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) does not require any interference. Thus the Ld. A.R. reiterated the submissions made before ld. CIT(A) and requested to uphold the same and dismiss the Revenue s appeal. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that during the course of search ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
