TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 850
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be evaded after giving effect of appeal order of CIT(A) is contrary to facts and law. 2. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any of the grounds of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm and it filed its return of income through e.filing on 29.9.2008 declaring a total income of Rs.6,16,310/-. Thereafter, the return was revised on 20.10.2008 declaring total income at nil. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Various notices u./s 142(1) were issued and served on the address furnished in the return of income but the assessee did not make compliance with any of these notices issued from time to time. Therefore, the assessment was completed on 27.12.2010 u/s 144 of the Inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led to explain as to why it was done and had failed to substantiate the contention with regard to the relevant documentary evidence. The Ld CIT(A) further observed that assessed income after giving appeal effect should work out at Rs.7,62,802/- and thus there was a difference between the assessed income and assessee's own admitted income in the first instance. As regards the assessee's reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the ld CIT(A) observed that there is nothing in the decision which prevents the Assessing Officer to impose penalty u/s 271(1)( c) where inaccurate particulars are furnished. He further held that law itself allows the assessee an opportunity to sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mated, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. 7. The Ld DR, on the other hand, strongly relied upon the Assessing Officer's order and ld CIT(A)'s order and argued that assessee had suppressed the earlier income declared in the original return of income and therefore no explanation was furnished by assessee in respect of increased expenses and therefore assessee had on the one hand had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and on the other hand had failed to furnish the explanations for difference in the two returns of income and therefore Assessing Officer had rightly imposed the penalty. Reliance was placed on the following judgments:- 1. CIT v., Smt. Chander Kanta & Others 205 ITR 607 (MP). 2. CIT v. Barsat Hussain (Pat.). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on before Ld CIT(A) that revised return was without its consent is of no force. In our opinion, the assessee took this plea before ld CIT(A) as it was unable to explain the difference in expenses. Therefore, in our view, the assessee had necessarily failed to furnish explanation to the difference in original return and revised return. The case laws relied upon by Ld AR of the assessee are wherein the books of accounts were rejected and income was estimated on the basis of some percentage. Whereas in the present case, the assessee had filed original return and had revised it by lowering the profits and on explanation it could not explain the difference. The facts of the case laws relied upon by ld DR in the case of CIT v. Chander Kanta & Oth....