Tribunal overturns penalty under Section 271(1)(c) finding no intent to deceive

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the assessee did not conceal income or provide inaccurate particulars. The additional income was voluntarily disclosed due to procedural lapses, not with the intent to deceive. The AO's acceptance of the revised return and the genuineness of the purchases supported the assessee's position. Citing relevant precedents, the Tribunal set aside the penalty orders, allowing the appeals filed by the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income.
2. Genuineness of purchases from certain suppliers.
3. Voluntary disclosure of additional income by the assessee.
4. Application of judicial precedents to the case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The main issue pertains to the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income by the assessee. The penalty was levied by the AO on the grounds that the assessee had concealed particulars of income by not disclosing certain purchases as genuine in their original return.

2. Genuineness of Purchases:
During a survey at the assessee's business premises, it was alleged that purchases from M/s. Thane Steel Pvt. Ltd., Manish & Barkha, and Parshva & Co. were not genuine. The assessee, represented by Mr. Kishore Golani, offered 50% of the purchases as additional income due to discrepancies in documentation, not because the purchases were bogus. The AO, after independent verification, accepted the additional income offered by the assessee.

3. Voluntary Disclosure of Additional Income:
The assessee voluntarily revised its return of income to include the additional income offered during the survey. The revised return was filed before the issuance of notice under Section 148, and the AO accepted the revised income after verification. The assessee's explanation for the additional income was due to lapses in documentation following the demise of key partners, not due to any intention to conceal income.

4. Application of Judicial Precedents:
The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including the Bombay High Court's decision in Hiralal Doshi, which held that voluntary disclosure of income to avoid litigation does not automatically justify the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal also cited the case of Vipul Life Sciences Ltd., where it was held that no penalty can be imposed if the income surrendered is accepted by the AO without any separate addition.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the assessee had not concealed any particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars. The additional income was offered voluntarily due to procedural lapses and to avoid litigation. The AO's acceptance of the revised return and the genuineness of the purchases further supported the assessee's case. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the penalty orders were set aside.

---