2013 (12) TMI 141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng out of the order of the Tribunal: - "(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in deleting the penalty of Rs. 3,35,853/- levied by the A.O. u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act? (2) Whether the A.O. rightly invoked the provisions of Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act while levying penalty as the assessee had not only concealed but had also furnished inaccurate particulars of its income? (3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act by ignoring the fact that the revised return disclosing concealed income was filed pursuant to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act? (4) Whether mere filing of the revised ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent of tax, the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 24.3.2005 calling upon the assessee to file a return of income. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 28.4.2005 declaring income, including the income of Rs. 10,72,840/- which was declared as long term capital gain in the original return. The assessment was completed on a sum of Rs. 12,03,006/- as against Rs. 10,72,840/- declared by the assessee. Proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 3,35,853/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who vide order dated 15.11.2006 had dismissed the appeal. Still feeling aggrieved, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... submitted regularized under section 148. In penalty proceedings under section 271, the assessee claimed that he had offered additional income to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation. Penalty orders were passed and the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the orders. But the Appellate Tribunal held that the Department had not discharged its burden of providing concealment and had simply rested its conclusion on the act of voluntary surrender done by the assessee in good faith, and that penalty could not be levied. On a reference, the High Court held that no penalty could be levied for concealment (seen [2004] 214 ITR 124). The Department preferred appeals to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals holding that no interferen....