TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (2) TMI 166
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the filing of the revised return before issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act, cannot be treated as a voluntary act, that the appellant is guilty of concealing income and is liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act? 2. It is seen that the first assessment was completed originally on 1.9.1999 under Section 147 of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised Returns withdrawing the claim for depreciation. It is seen that the assessee claimed 100% depreciation originally. The assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Act. It is stated that a survey under Section 133A was carried out by the Department in the case of M/s.Bellari Steels ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further analysis of the facts, the Revenue completed the assessment and held that the assessee had full knowledge of the transaction as not a genuine one and that the sham transaction was mutually beneficial; that the assessee had full knowledge about the transaction and hence, penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. The assessee resisted the claim that they were not aware of the forged documents and contended that they had not concealed the income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars. They also brought to the attention of the authorities that they filed revised returns voluntarily withdrawing the claim for depreciation once t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The investigation conducted by the Revenue clearly proved the bogus transaction. In the above circumstances, the appellate authority rejected the plea of the assessee that they are unaware of the bogus transaction. 7. Going by the law laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court reported in K.P.MADHUSUDAN Vs. CIT, [2001] 251 ITR 99 the appellate authority held that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Thus, it confirmed the penalty for the assessment year 1995-96. 8. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal noted that admittedly the assessee had an inspection of the steel rollers in the lessee's premises. The fact was that there was no steel roll....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t attitude of the lessee and hence had gone for withdrawal of the claim for depreciation on its own accord; consequently, the assessee could not be attributed motive that it had knowledge on the definite character of the transaction. He also submitted that there was no material before the Tribunal to hold that the assessee made a false claim knowingly. In the circumstances, he prayed for reversing the order. 11. We do not find any basis to accept this plea of the assessee herein. As a final fact finding authority, the Tribunal has clearly found that the claim of the assessee for depreciation was bogus on the non-existing assets. Noting the conduct of the assessee, the Tribunal held that the appellant had deliberatel....