Appeal granted for review of benami account, emphasizing factual accuracy and penalty consistency.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the CIT(A) to decide all appeals together after verifying the information, inquiries, and intentions related to the benami account. The decision highlighted the importance of a comprehensive review of facts and consistency in penalty imposition across multiple assessment years.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for concealment of income in a benami bank account.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Background and Facts
The appellant, engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Bidi, operated a Bank of Baroda benami account in the name of the son. The account remained undisclosed for multiple assessment years. After a notice under section 143(2), the appellant filed a revised return owning up the benami account and subsequent proceedings were initiated leading to the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c).

Issue 2: AO and CIT(A) Observations
The AO objected to the revised return, stating that it was not a case of unintentional omission but intentional concealment of income. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, emphasizing that the revised return cannot be filed under section 139(5) if the original return was known to be false, citing relevant case laws.

Issue 3: Assessee's Contention
The appellant argued that the revised return was valid as the omission was unintentional and unknown to the assessee before the notice under section 142(1). The appellant claimed that the revised return was voluntary and filed before detection by the department, thus penalty under section 271(1)(c) should not be imposed.

Issue 4: Arguments and Precedents
The appellant's counsel cited cases where penalty was not levied in similar circumstances. The Department, however, relied on precedents supporting penalty imposition, including a High Court judgment. The appellant contended that the High Court judgment was not applicable in this case as there was no prior information with the department regarding the concealment.

Issue 5: Tribunal's Decision
The Tribunal found discrepancies in the information provided by both parties regarding the timeline of events and the department's knowledge of the benami account. Considering the pending penalty appeals for previous years, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need to consider all relevant facts and previous years' penalties together.

Conclusion
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the CIT(A) to decide all appeals together after verifying the information, inquiries, and intentions related to the benami account. The decision highlighted the importance of a comprehensive review of facts and consistency in penalty imposition across multiple assessment years.

---