TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 446
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,99,35,135/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,29,21,560/- on 31/08/2010. The case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was framed vide order dated 26/02/2013. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO in short) accepted the income declared ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty of law. The ld.counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that under the facts, no proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) can be initiated. He submitted that as per section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO is empowered to initiate proceedings if he is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that at the time of filing of the return, the assessee has declared all particulars of income, the income so declared is duly accepted by the AO, therefore, under these facts, the penalty proceedings initiated is illegal and bad in law. 3.1. On the contrary, ld.Sr.DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer] or the [* * * * *] [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] (Appeals)] or the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person- (a).... (b).... (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or [ * * * ] furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 4.1. From the above, it is evident that the proceedings can be initiated when the assessee is guilty of concealing the particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. In the instant case, the income declared in the return has been accepted. The AO has observed that from the audited financial statements of the assessee and the return of income filed by the assessee, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dered view, unless the return is filed before the Revenue, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act would not come into play for the simple reason that section 271(1)(c) envisages two conditions; i.e., concealment of particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. The AO has initiated the penalty proceedings for "concealment of income". However, the AO has accepted the fact that this amount was duly disclosed in the return of income. The return so filed is not declared as illegal or invalid by the AO. Under these facts, we are unable to accept the reasoning given by the AO. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed this reasoning of the AO by relying on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of MAK Data ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctions in the books of account, to explain the source 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." 4.2. In the present case, it is not the case where the assessee has surrendered the amount during the course of the assessment proceedings. In the case of MAK Data (P.)Ltd.[supra] before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the assessee had already filed its return of income for AY 2004-05 on 27/10/2004, wherein assessee declared a total income of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. CIT-DR has contended that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the additional income amounting to Rs. 41,73,000/- was declared in consequence to the survey action by the Revenue. However, it is not disputed by the Id. CIT-DR that the assessee has declared this income in his original Return of Income, although it was belated return. As per provisions of Section 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, penalty can be imposed if the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnishing the inaccurate particulars of such income. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the particulars of income are reflected in the Return of Income. It is not the case of the Revenue that the returns of income filed were invalid. In fact, t....