TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment proceedings, the assessee surrendered an amount of Rs. 16,95,190/- under the head "sundry creditors" being difference in the sundry creditors' list submitted by the assessee and that received from sundry creditors. This amount was surrendered to avoid further litigation though the payment was not made to the parties. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty on the concealment of income amounting to Rs. 5,08,557/- by observing that surrender was after issue of a notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. 3. Action of the Assessing Officer was challenged in appeal before first appellate authority and it was contended that surrender was made prior to detection by the Assessing Officer. It was voluntarily and moreover Assessing Officer did not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee gave a bona fide explanation and undeservedly gave all the documents and information without holding any information relating to the computation of assessee's total income, the assessee explanation unless found to be false, would deserve acceptance for purpose of penalty imposable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, so no penalty should be exigible. In other words, if any assessee offers an explanation, which is not found to be false, he can save himself of penalty, even if he were not able to substantiate his case as long as he places all the relevant material to the computation of his total income irrespective of fact that same explanation was not accepted for the purpose of assessment. The assessee relied upon further decisions: 1. Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....undry creditors, he came forward to surrender the amount. So, it was not his voluntary action. Therefore, penalty was attracted which has rightly been imposed by the Assessing Officer. Reliance was placed on Ahmedabad Bench decision as reported in Kailashbhai Ambalal Shah v. ITO [2011] 129 ITD 135/9 taxmann.com 9 (Ahd.), CIT v. Producin (P.) Ltd., [2010] 191 Taxman 79 (SC) and it was prayed for reversal of the order of the CIT(A). 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of CIT(A) and pleaded for its confirmation. He has placed reliance on the case laws as cited before CIT(A) and incorporated in the first appellate order and also further case laws as reported in Saran Khandsari (supra), Mansa Ram & Sons (supra) and CIT v. Ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he income at Rs. 35,000. It, therefore, appears that the agreement was conditional. In such circumstances, penalty cannot be imposed. From another angle also, the fact as noticed in the assessment order do not indicate any concealment at all. The income was merely estimated without finding any concealment as such. From this angle also. Therefore, penalty is not attracted. The penalty order is, therefore, cancelled. The Revenue is in appeal. Sri B.D. Sainia, appearing for the Revenue, supported the order of the ITO. For the assessee reliance was placed on the AAC's order. After hearing the parties, we find ourselves in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the AAC on the facts of the case we decline to interfere." We have hea....