Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was leviable where the assessee filed a revised return offering additional income after summons and material from a search in a third party's premises, and whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty.
Analysis: The revised return and accompanying correspondence showed that the assessee offered the additional amount after being confronted with material indicating the payment, and the original return had already omitted the relevant expenditure. The Court held that penalty proceedings are attracted where inaccurate particulars are furnished or concealment is established, and that the plea of voluntary surrender to buy peace does not by itself displace liability under section 271(1)(c). The assessee's explanation was found not acceptable, and the absence of independent evidence from the seized papers did not negate the inference of furnishing inaccurate particulars from the assessee's own conduct and revised disclosure. The argument based on consistency for another assessment year was also rejected.
Conclusion: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was rightly leviable and the deletion of penalty by the Tribunal was incorrect.