TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (9) TMI 276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO's order and contended that the assessee having concealed his income, the AO rightly levied the penalty. He has contended that the concealment has to be considered on the basis of revised return containing sum surrendered by assessee. He has contended that the surrender in revised return will not nullify the concealment resulting from original return. He has contended that the onus is on the assessee to explain that there was no fraud or wilful neglect on his part to furnish the correct return of income. He has contended that the assessee did not give any explanation before AO before penalty proceedings. 4. As against the above, the learned authorised representative of assessee has contended that the expenditure of Rs. 20,000 comprise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the AO as is required under s. 274 in respect of penalty above Rs. 10,000. At this juncture, it may be observed that the learned Departmental Representative of Revenue objected to this plea being raised by the learned authorised representative of assessee for the reason that no such objection can be taken by assessee in this appeal of Revenue. 6. I have considered the rival contentions as also the relevant material on record, as also the cited decision. 7. In (1992) 43 TTJ 503 (JP) it has been contended that the case was of allegedly receiving 'on money' on sale of certain brands of cigarettes. The assessee had surrendered Rs. 40,000 through a revised return, covering partly the impugned addition of Rs. 53,119 as a result of which the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income returned has been accepted. It has been held that mere surrender of income on account of survey would not per se lead to concealment of income. 9. In ITO vs. Moti Ram Subhash Chand Jain (1988) 27 ITD 44 (Del), Tribunal Delhi has held that penalty for concealment cannot be imposed in respect of cash credit added to assessee's income due to want of evidence produced by assessee to the satisfaction of ITO. It has also been held therein that no penalty can be levied in respect of addition made to assessee's income on the basis of statement when these amounts were mentioned in the returns filed by assessee and no deletion (sic) of concealment was made by ITO in respect of them after filing of return. It was also held that this was not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that declared by assessee, the same being the result of estimation cannot be treated to be the income concealed by assessee, and in turn, the assessee having not furnished particulars in respect thereof. As such. considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the legal position, I find the levy of penalty for concealment under s. 271(1)(c) in respect of the addition amount of Rs. 21,600 based on application of higher g.p. rate to be not tenable in law, and so the same needs be cancelled. I order accordingly. 13. As regards the balance concealed amount of Rs. 20,000, I find no force in the contention of the learned authorised representative of assessee regarding the assessee's fault having been nullified due to the said....