TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (1) TMI 165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d its return of income originally as follows: Assessment years Date of filing Amount of income Declared 1. 2004-05 28.9.04 Rs. 5,70,950 2. 2005-06 27.9.05 Rs. 7,91,562 Rs. 1,95,000 (Agri Income) 3. 2006-07 21.7.06 Rs. 13,37,415 Rs.2,36,500 (Agri Income) 3. There was a survey conducted u/s 133A of the Act in the premises of the assessee on 15.11.2006 and one undisclosed bank account found wherein certain deposits has been made which had escaped from assessment: The total cash deposits on various dates during the period from : 1. 16.2.04 to 31.3.04 Peak cash deposit Rs. 31,24,326 Rs. 18 lakhs on 27.2.04 2. 1.4.04 to 31.3.2005 With peak cash deposit Rs. 1,24,35,740 R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt year 2004-05 Income originally admitted Rs. 5,70,950 Income offered vide return on 11.12.07 Rs. 18 lakhs Further additional income vide Return dt. 27.12.03 Rs. 11,42,770 Addition made relating to claim of (a) Loan from HUF for want of evidence Disallowed Rs. 1.8 lakhs (b) towards low drawing Rs. 1 lakh Total Income Rs. 37,93,770 Assessment year 2005-06 Income originally admitted Rs. 7,91,562 Income offered 11.12.2007 Rs. 9 lakhs Further additional income offered vide return dt.27.12.07 Rs. 1.85,735 Additions made Claim of loan Rs. 1.85 lakhs Low drawings Rs. 1 lakhs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he transactions to get it at better price. Since keeping of the cash on hand is a very risky affair, the assessee deposited the cash into the bank and the money is not belonging to the assessee. 10. The authorised representative of the assessee relied on the order of the Tribunal dated 31.8.2010 in ITA Nos.177 to 182, 567, 568 & 278 to 283/H/2010 Dr. T. Ravi Kumar, Nellore Bs. ACIT, Nellore wherein it was held as follows: 9. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in view of our decision in the assessee's appeals for these very assessment years, holding that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was leviable on the assessee in these cases, for the reasons discussed at length in para 5 of this order in that context, we hold....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T v. MRA Ansari and PN Khanna, JJ. (98 ITR 462) (Delhi) 5. Western Automobiles (I) v. CIT (112 ITR 1048) (Delhi) 6. CIT v. K. Shivashankar Bhat and R. Ramakrishna, JJ. (Kar.) 7. CIT v. Sudarshan Silks and Sarees (253 ITR 145) (Kar.) 8. CIT v. R. Sadayappan (253 ITR 203) (Mad.) 9. PC Joseph & Bros. v. CIT (243 ITR 818) (Ker.) 10. CIT v. Krishna & Co. (120 ITR 144) (Mad.) 11. Pool Singh & Co. v. CIT (98 ITR 564) (Delhi) 12. CIT v. D R Gupta (122 ITR 567) (Raj.) 13. Mirzapur Construction Co. v. CIT (122 ITR 828) (All.) 14. Union Engineering Co. v. CIT (122 719) (Ker.) 15. ITO v. Leela Mammen (63 TTJ 252) (Cochin) 16. Jswant Rai & Another v. CBDT (133 ITR 19) (Delhi) 17. CIT v. Gates Foam Rubber Co. (90 IT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t not be held guilty of default u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, when from the very beginning, the assessee has intentionally concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, there is no question of assessee escaping penalty on account of fining of revised return. Blameworthiness attached to the assessee with reference to the original return cannot be avoided by filing revised return after concealment was detected by the revenue authorities. Where the concealment of income made in the original return or where the surrender of income made was not voluntarily but was as a result of detection by the assessing officer, filing of revised return is of no consequence. Section 139(5) applies to the limited recourses of cases where in the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income was not made by the assessee on the condition that no penalty shall be levied and that surrender was also not made at the instance of the ITO and also not on voluntary basis and there was no assurance from the department for not levying penalty. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that surrender made in the revised return was subject to certain conditions. There is no provision to make a conditional surrender. At any rate, the assessee having admitted the so called additional income as part of total income, the revenue had nothing further to prove. The revenue can rely upon assessee's admission. But, the assessee is at liberty to show that actually it is not an income even at penalty proceedings. However, in the present c....