TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 927
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n total income of Rs. 40,05,170/-. In course of the search, Rs. 2.77 crores was offered as additional income representing Rs. 2.27 crores on account of bogus short and long term capital gains and Rs. 50 lacs on account of bogus gifts purchased in the name of the assessee and his family members. The gift of Rs. 50 lacs was offered as the assessee was unable to prove its genuineness in course of the search and seizure operation. Out of Rs. 50 lacs, Rs. 40 lacs was attributed to the present assessment year under consideration. This amount was not included in the return of income filed in compliance to notice u/s. 153A of the I.T. Act. When confronted with this omission during the assessment proceedings vide questionnaire dt. 6.5.2008, the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase from the cases relied upon by the assessee, it was pointed out that unlike in the assessee's own case, in the cases relied upon by the assessee, the additional income was offered during the assessment proceedings. Based on all this, the AO found this to be a fit case for levy of penalty. 3. The Assessing Officer in the order of Penalty held as follows: "I have considered the above submission of the assessee and found no force in them inasmuch as the assessee has failed to comply with the provisions of Sec. 132(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The malafide intention of the assessee has been proved by not offering the additional income of Rs. 40,00,000/- in the return filed in compliance with the notice u/s. 153A. The malafide intent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 1961. Issue notice of demand and challan." 4. On further appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the CIT(A) held as follows: "Í have considered the penalty order and the submissions of the appellant. Looking into the disclosure of the additional income u/s. 132(4) of the I.T. Act, the manner of the disclosure, the omission to include the disclosure in the return of income filed in response to the notice u/s. 153A of the I.T. Act and the circumstances leading to the filing of revised return I find the penalty l4evied justified. To this end, in the first place, I find that after omitting to include the additional income offered in the return of income despite offering it u/s. 132(4) of the I.T. Act, the appellant lost the immunity gra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ving made admission u/s. 132(4) of the I.T. Act. This chain of events prompts me to hold that contrary to what the appellant claims, the disclosure was not voluntary. In this respect, the decisions in the cases Biland Ram Hargan Dass Vs CIT 171 ITR 390 (All), CIT Vs K. Sampath Reddy 197 ITR 232 (Kar) and CIT Vs Mohd M. Farooqui 259 ITR 132 (Raj) bear special mention. As may be noted, in these decisions, sthe Hon'ble Courts have very categorically held that any admission or disclosure coming after the detection of concealment cannot be treated as voluntary and as such, is liable to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. I would also like to draw attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT VS Express New....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y contradictory implying that the details filed are inaccurate and not credible. The appellant is thus also guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The appellant's reliance on the decisions quoted by him is also misplaced in that unlike in these decisions, in the appellant's case, there was a disclosure u/s. 132(4) and the addition is not based on the disclosure but on independent detection of bogus gifts during the search and seizure operation. In line with the foregoing, I find the penalty justified. It is confirmed and the ground of appeal are dismissed." 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before us. The Ld. Departmental Representative Shri S.T. Bidari submitted that the assessee has accepted the quantum addition and has ....