TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Department during the survey operation and when the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued, finding no other alternative the assessee surrendered income to avoid penal consequences ?" The assessment year is 2004-2005. Heard Mr.Bhowmik, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr.Avratosh Majumdar, learned advocate for the respondent. The facts are that the assessee filed return showing total income of Rs. 2,04,380/- which was duly processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee and the concerned group companies. During the course of survey it was detected that the assessee made investment of Rs. 30 lakhs with M/s.Khetawat Stoc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the normal return. The assessee has showed a gesture to disclosed additional income of Rs. 30 lakhs only after the detection by the department. c) In view of Para (a) & (b) above, it is crystal clear that the assessee has wilfully and deliberately concealed the particulars leading to computation of total income while submitting return u/s 139. Mere showing of additional income in a return filed in response to notice u/s 148 does not give immunity from penal action u/s 271(1)(c) to the assessee. In view of the above, I consider this case as a fit one for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). I impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded...." Aggrieved by the order imposing penalty, appeal was filed by the assessee b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... absence of any positive evidenced of concealment being brought to the fore by the A.O. in the assessment proceedings other than the fact of admission of additional income. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Spinning& Weaving.supra, the A.O. still has to establish the conditions for the levy of penalty and considering the ratio of judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT vs SAS Pharmaceuticals, it is the assessment proceedings and ROI and not the Survey proceedings which are relevant for the levy of Penalty. The Ho'ble Mumbai Tribunal "E" Bench in the case of Suryodaya Motors P Ltd in ITA Nos 4280 & 4281/Mum/2009, had in similar circumstances where a revised return subsequent to the Survey was filed, set aside levy of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....culars of income and to bring out the conditions for imposition of penalty. In this case as has been mentioned earlier he has not been able to bring out that there was any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars o0f income by the assessee during the course of assessment. In such circumstances, in our considered opinion no case has been made out that assessee has made any concealment or furnished any inaccurate particulars so as to invite the rigors of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act. In this regard the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs SAS Pharmaceuticals 39 (1) ITCL 448 (Dewl-HC) 2011 is also relevant. In this case it is expounded that whether there was any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate ....