2008 (3) TMI 41

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of law:-"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) at Rs.4,25,720/-?" The respondent is drawing income from salary, business income, house property and income from other sources. The return in this case was filed on 22.10.2001 declaring income of Rs.4,35,110/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The Assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer on 29.3.2004 at an income of Rs.16,47,990/- after making addition of Rs.12,12,880/- on account of uncorroborated freight charges. The Assessing Officer noticed that respondent had furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and had also concealed the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the surrender made by the assessee was never mutually agreed upon, as the same was rejected by the Assessing Officer, as the said surrender had been made only after investigation was carried out by the department and it was not bonafide and voluntary disclosure as the revised return was made only when the assessee came to know that there was detection of concealment by the department. Thus the penalty was rightly imposed by the Assessing Officer and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be quashed. After hearing learned counsel for the Revenue, we find no force in the contentions raised by him. In response to show cause notice issued to the assessee, reply was submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of higher income having been subsequently declared. It was a case wherein the assessee filed the revised return showing higher income and gave an explanation that he offered higher income to buy peace of mind and to avoid litigation. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Suresh Chander Mittal (251 ITR 9)(SC) observed that when an assessee files a revised return showing higher income and gave explanation that he offered higher income to buy peace of mind and to avoid litigation, penalty cannot be imposed merely on accoaunt of higher income having been subsequently declared. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that the case....