TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 816
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Department against the judgment and order dated 12.09.2002 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In the appeal following two questions of law have been framed for consideration:- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal is legally justified in holding the A.O., should prove mensrea of the assessee that it concealed the income to evade tax. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is legally correct to uphold the order of the CIT (A), Agra canceling the penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) imposed at Rs. 2,10,000/- without appreciating the fact that the revised return was filed only of the detection of bogus liabilities. A return was filed by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partment went in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the same has been dismissed on 12.09.2004. Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that filing of the revised return under Section 139(5) of the Act was a kind of notice issued by the Assessing Officer to include the said outstanding amount as income, hence, the disclosure was not voluntary. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly held that the present was a case of furnishing incorrect particulars in writing penalty under Section 271 (1)(c). He submits that any disclosure for the particulars of ending the litigation or paying piece cannot be said to be voluntary disclosure nor in such disclosure can absolve assessee fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dering the submission has noticed the relevant Paragraph No. 2.5 which to the following effect:- 2.5- The CIT(A) cancelled the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for the reason that the AO failed to make proper enquiries into the genuineness of the appellant's claim with the persons in whose names the liabilities were shown to be outstanding. According to CIT(A), the AO has impounded the vouchers related to purchase of Bardana as far back as in Oct. 92 but no inquiry was made in regarding to cuttings, erasers etc. The AO found that most of suppliers of Bardana were genuine as no addition was made as he issued notice about 20 persons. While addition was made only in regard to 5 persons. According to CIT (A), the books of accounts for subsequen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evised return was filed only for the reasons that the dealers belong to a particular community who had left the Town during riots due to Ram Janma Bhumi and Babari Masjid dispute or otherwise refused to give confirmation letter. So, the assessee opted to surrender the amount to end the litigation. This could have been verified by the AO by making local enquires and on going through the books of account of subsequent assessment years in which the amount was paid to the dealers. Similarly, in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim Azimulla Vs. CIT, 131 ITR 680, the jurisdictional High Court has held that the acceptance of revised return of income u/s 139(5) depends on the fulfillment of certain essentials. It is only a disclosure in the revised return in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The present is not a case of concealment of particulars of any income of the assessee. At best, the case could have proceeded on the ground that assessee "furnished inaccurate particulars of such income". From the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II as well as the Tribunal, it is clear that the assessee has shown in his initial return filed on 31.10.1991, twenty entries showing outstanding as on 31.03.1991 against the different parties. The assessee was asked to bring confirmation of the aforesaid outstanding amount. The Assessing Officer doubted the genuineness of the transaction. The Assessing Officer in fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by the assessee on account of he having not been able to filed requisite confirmation letters or proof. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that he filed any inaccurate particulars on which penalty could have been imposed under Section 271 (1) (c). The judgment relied by learned counsel for the appellant in Bajrang Glass Emporium Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra (supra) where it was held that in case of surrender of income by assessee without offering plausible explanation whether he can be absolve from the charge of penalty for concealment of income. The Division Bench has held that such assessee cannot be absolve from the charge of penalty for concealment. The ratio is that the assessee cannot be absolved from charge o....