2011 (6) TMI 56

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the revised return filed by the asessee to purchase peace and avoid litigation would amount to concealment in the instant case attracting penalty under Section 217(1)(c) of the Income Tax?   2.(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the revised return filed by the assessee would constitute a valid, legal and proper basis for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, particularly since the assessment was based only on the said return and not on any evidence or material on record, justifying the assessment of the income, in respect of which the penalty was levied.   (b) Whether ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he assessment, proceedings were initiated to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee stated that it offered to agree the income only to purchase peace from the Department. As such, there was no wilful concealment at all warranting levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Taking the view that the assessee had admitted the income as undisclosed and it was made use to make undisclosed investments by the Managing Partner, the Assessing Authority levied minimum penalty of Rs.60,000/- for the assessment year 1990-91 as against the maximum penalty leviable at Rs.1,52,500/-; Rs.1,00,000/- for the assessment year 1991-92 as against the maximum penalty of Rs.2,70,000/- and for the last assessment....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....)(c) of the Income Tax Act, the reliance placed by the assessee as regards the decision reported in (2001) 251 ITR 9 (CIT V. Suresh Chandra Mittal) is no longer sustainable in law.   5. The Tribunal pointed out that after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Madhusudhanan V. CIT reported in (2001) 251 ITR 99 and with the introduction of Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, the decision reported in 168 ITR 705 (SC) (Sir Sadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. and another V. CIT), has no relevance to the case on hand. Thus the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue, thereby restored the order of penalty made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been filed by....