TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her upon the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the surrender of Rs. 2 lacs by the appellant to be added to its income as extra profit was not bonafide and was not to purchase peace and avoid litigation? 3. Whether upon the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the department had discharged its burden to prove concealment? 4. Whether upon the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the CIT (Appellate) deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271 (1) (c), on surmises and conjectures? 5. Whether upon the fact and in the circumstances of the case, surrendering the amount resulting due to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....payment of Rs. 1 lakh made by them on 21.1.1992. In the bank account, no deposit of Rs. 1 lakh appeared on 21.1.1992. The A.O. observed that the assessee had fraudulently reduced the liability. 4. The A.O. further found that cash receipt of Rs. 88,000/- of M/s. Radhika Trading Company, paid on 11.10.1991, was not entered in the books of account of the assessee nor sale of Rs. 91,174.55 made to them on 9.12.1991 appeared in the accounts of M/s. Radhika Trading Company in the assessee's books. The assessee explained that the rice of Rs. 1,176.55 was sold, but the sale was cancelled and the goods were further sold to M/s. Radhika Trading Company These sales were wrongly posted in the account of M/s. Vishnu Traders, Delhi. 5. The A.O. found t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Munim had committed certain mistakes while totaling up the various heads of expenses as well as various pages of account books and not recorded certain transactions for purchase and sale and if both are adjusted, there remains no difference. Similarly, it was contended that the valuation of the closing stock is defective and it does not call for imposition of penalty. Thus, on account of the fact that there was no intention on account of the partners, an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was surrendered. It was further contended that the partners were so gullible that they did not file an appeal against the assessment order which proved their innocence. It was further contended that even if the addition was warranted for tax purposes, the addition wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The assessee surrendered Rs. 2 lakhs after the explanation given by their counsel regarding discrepancy in the accounts, was not accepted. The additions were not by way of any concealment of income as an attempt to evade the tax. These were by way of bonafide mistakes which were sought to be explained, but since they were not accepted, the assessee bonafidely surrendered Rs. 2 lakhs and he did not file any appeal, in which circumstance, the provisions of Section 271(1)(C) were not attracted. The Tribunal erred in law in allowing the appeal. He has relied upon the judgment in CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 9/119 Taxman 433 in which it was held that where the department had not discharged the burden of proving concealment and h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... behind the enactment of Section 272(1)(c) read with the Explanations, indicate that the said section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue. The penalty under that provision is a civil liability. Wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case in the matter of prosecution under Section 276C of the Income Tax Act. 9. In the present case, the A.O. has not recorded any finding that the assessee willfully attempted to conceal the income. The entire accounts were placed before the A.O. who did not discover any incriminating material on the basis of which he could draw a conclusion that the assessee had deliberately concealed the income. During the course of assessment when t....