TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 500
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 139(5) as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdishchandra Sinha 220 ITR 67 (SC) and F.C. Agarwal 186 ITR 57 (SC) and that if the original return was deliberately filed wrong, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is leviable on the admitted amount of concealed income of Rs. 4.81 crores being the peak credits in the bank account of the assessee and his family members?" 2. We have heard Mr.Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant. 3. The facts are that initially, the return was filed by the assessee for the assessment year of 2005-2006 on 27.03.2006 for the taxable income of Rs. 5,52,179/-. Later on, assessee filed revised return as on 31.03.2006 (which is stated by Mr. Bhatt for the appellant that the correct dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder: "11. It is observed that the investigation in the instant case was commenced by the A.O. only on 24-8-2007 by issue of 142[1] Notice. No material was brought before us to show that there was any material available with the department prior to 31-3-2007 to show that there was some additional income then the income disclosed in the original return assessable in the hands of the assessee. In the circumstances, in our considered view, it cannot be held that the disclosure of additional income by the assessee on 31-3-2007 was after its detection by the department. 12. We find that 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 [Gu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... V Electricals {P} Ltd. [2005] 274 ITR 334/[2006] 155 Taxman 158 and the Hon. Jharkhand High court in CIT V. Ashim Kumar Agarwal [2005] 275 ITR 48/[2006] 153 Taxman 226 held that there the assessee surrenders his full income, though at a later stage, there was no question of any concealment on his part and consequently, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was leviable, and that an omission from return of income did not amount to concealment. The Hon. Jurisdictional High court while adjudicating the issue of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in the case of CIT v. Harnarain in their decision dated 31-10-2011 in ITA No. 2072/2010 concluded that "surrender of the amount by the assessee after receipt of the questionnaire could not lead to an inference that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Tribunal found that the case is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in light of the other decision referred to by the Tribunal on the aspect that there was no concealment of the income and the Tribunal accordingly dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Under the circumstances, the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the Revenue attempted to contend that the second return which was titled as revised return was after the outer limit and therefore, it was no revised return in the eye of law and if such factor is considered, it can be said that there was concealment of the income on the part of the assessee coupled with the aspect that after the scrutiny notice was issued, the so called revised return was filed and therefore, he ....