TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 1029
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the materials available on record. The undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income originally on 27- 3-2006 disclosing income at Rs. 5,52,179.00. Thereafter, notice u/s. 143[2] was issued on 4-10-2006. After this, the assessee filed a second return wherein declaring its total income at Rs. 4,44,82,930.00 on the basis of peak deposit in his bank account, which he could not substantiate with evidence. 4. The investigation in the case of the assessee in pursuance to sec. 143[2] Notice dated 4-10-2006 was started by the A.O. on 24-8-2007 issuing a notice u/s. 142[1] of the Act. Thereafter, assessment u/s. 143[3] was completed on 24-12-2007 at th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of Snita Transport [P] Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2014] 42 Taxmann.com 54 [Gujarat]. 9. On the other hand, the AR of the assessee supported the order of the CIT[A] and submitted that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon. Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ashok Raj Nath [2013] 33 Taxmann.com 588 [Del. Tribunal]. 10. We find that in the instant case, it is not in dispute that second return filed by the assessee on 31-3-2007 was not a valid revised return. The only dispute before us is that as per the department, as the additional income disclosed in the subsequen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rding of statement, only the assessee disclosed additional income by way of a revised return on 11-3-2003 and on these circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court found levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was justified. Thus, it is observed in that case, the assessee disclosed the additional income after the same was detected during the course of the survey by the department. Whereas, in the instant case, there is no such material to show that the department had actually detected any income of the assessee which was not disclosed in the return prior to 31-3-2007, when the assessee disclosed its additional income. 13. On the other hand, we find that the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ashok Raj Nath [....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of law framed is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee." 19. In the instant case, the assessee voluntarily disclosed additional income during the course of assessment proceedings and paid tax thereon. In the light of view taken in the aforesaid decisions, it cannot be said that in the case before us, additional income disclosed during the course of assessment proceedings was not voluntary or that the assessee wanted to conceal the income. Even though the revised return was found to be invalid, the A.O. accepted the income as declared in the revised return and computation. The A.O. did not bring any material on record that the declaration of income made by the assessee in his revised return or his explanation was not ....