TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 628
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment year 2003-04 and ITA No. 19/008-09 for the assessment year 2005-06. Shri Jayaragavan, JICT represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate represented on behalf of the assessee. 2. The only common issue in the grounds of appeals of the Revenue for all these five years is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts in these cases are that the assessee is a dealer of Mahendra & Mahendra dealing in tractors and tractors parts having its show room and sales office at Urapakkam, Chennai. While completing the assessment for the assessment year 2003-04, the Assessing Officer came to know that there is escapement of income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed sales, estimated profit on gross receipts and incentives received from Mahendra & Mahendra. 5. The Assessing Officer passed orders under section 271(1)(c) for all these four assessment years i.e., 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2003- 04 levying penalty on the additions sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). On appeal against the penalty orders, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty on which the Revenue filed appeals before us. 6. The counsel for the Revenue submitted that the assessment for the assessment year 2003-04 was completed making additions towards unaccounted sales and consequently, the assessments were reopened for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 by issue of notice u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and therefore, there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has estimated profit on gross receipts and profits on alleged unaccounted sales. The Assessing Officer also made additions towards advances received from customers and incentives received from Mahendra & Mahendra, which were reduced by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The counsel for the assessee strongly relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and submitted that the penalty may be deleted and order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be sustain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee filed revised returns subsequent to issue of notice under section 148 and the income was not voluntarily returned as claimed by the assessee. On an identical case of the assessee, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal [251 ITR 009], while affirming the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [241 ITR 124] held that penalty cannot be levied when the assessee filed revised return showing higher income after search and notice for reopening of assessment were issued. The relevant headnote and the gist of the case are reported as under: "PENALTY - COPNCEALMENT OF INCOME - ASSESSEE INTIALLY FILING RETURNS WITH MEAGRE INCOME - FILING REVISED RETURNS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment years. Therefore, we sustain the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2003-04 are dismissed. I.T.A. No. 952/Mds/2010 : Assessment Year 2005-06 13. The only issue in the grounds of appeal of the Revenue is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in allowing the claim of telescoping to the extent of ₹ 11,10,033/-. 14. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment made various additions towards advances from customers, incentives received from Mahendra & Mahendra, unexplained purchases, etc. 15. The assessee filed an appeal before th....