TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1762
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of law. "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law in deleting the penalty of Rs. 45,50,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) on undisclosed income of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee had offered the additional income for taxation only after it was detected by the department while conducting a survey operation u/s 133A(1) of the Income Tax Act?" 2. The respondent - assessee, a firm, filed its return of income for assessment year 2009-10 on 30.07.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 20,10,190/-. During the course of survey, certain documents reflecting unaccounted income from the "Nakshatra" project were found and impounded, on the basis of which, Shri Ragesh Kumar P. Shah, the key person and part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter in further appeal before the Tribunal and succeeded. 4. Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant submitted that it was only pursuant to the survey carried out by the Income Tax Department under section 133A(1) of the Act, that the assessee had disclosed the income of Rs. 1,20,00,000/-. Had it not been the survey action, no such disclosure would have been made and hence, the disclosure made by the assessee does not fall within the ambit of "voluntary disclosure". Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, (2014) 1 SCC 674, wherein the court had observed that the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act raises a pres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relevant year declaring total income of Rs. 1,40,10,190/- and paid taxes accordingly. The Assessing Officer while framing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, accepted the income as filed in the revised return of income. 6. The Tribunal in the impugned order, has recorded that the revised return filed by the assessee was accepted in totality by the Assessing Officer and no addition was made. The Tribunal was of the view that considering the fact that the assessee had made the disclosure of income in the revised return of income and the Assessing Officer had also accepted the same, in view of the fact that the revenue had not found actual concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return of income, n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of payments made by it and to declare its true income in the return of income filed by it from year to year. The AO, in our view, has recorded a categorical finding that he was satisfied that the assessee had concealed true particulars of income and is liable for penalty proceedings under section 271 read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 8. The Commissioner (Appeals) while upholding the order of the Assessing Officer, placed reliance upon the above decision of the Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has also strongly placed reliance upon the said decision. 9. From the observations made by the Supreme Court in the above decision as reproduced hereinabove, it is apparent that the court has observed that ha....