TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e deserves to be deleted. 1.1. That the ld. CIT (A) has further erred in ignoring the fact that the income has already been disclosed by the appellant in the books of accounts and due tax was paid thereon and neither any inaccurate particulars of income were furnished nor any income was concealed thus the penalty so levied at Rs. 14,28,950/- deserves to be deleted. 1.2. That the ld. CIT (A) has further erred in not accepting the explanation of assessee who acted in bonafide manner and by sufficient reasons explain the circumstances leading to mistake, thus the resultant confirmation of penalty at Rs. 14,28,950/- deserves to be deleted. 2. The assessee has filed the return on 30th September, 2009 at Rs. 2,42,212/-. All the grounds of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f stock on physical verification was worked out at Rs. 44,42,906/- after allowing the GP @ 5.51% which has been declared by the assessee in previous year and actual valuation at cost of the stock was worked out at Rs. 41,98,102/-. In addition to above, as per the bills of purchase not entered in the books of account, the stock was of Rs. 1,43,003/- was lying at the transport company. Therefore, the valuation of the total stock found from physical verification was at Rs. 43,41,105/-. Similarly, the assessee after incorporating each and every purchase/sale vouchers and allowing GP rate of 5.51% had worked out the sale at Rs. 45,32,596/- and purchases at Rs. 49,42,082/- upto the date of survey and accordingly the stock as per the books of acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not as per the accounting principle. Thus the entire amount of undisclosed income at Rs. 43,89,548/- has been admitted and surrendered and also disclosed in the regular return of income. Therefore, he made the addition of Rs. 43,79,548/- under the head Undisclosed income. Notice under section 271(1)(c) had been issued separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.2. Before imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), the AO gave reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee which was availed by the assessee vide letter dated 23.04.2012 which has been reproduced by the AO on pages 1 to 3 of his order. The assessee again furnished the reply on 25.06.2012 and submitted that her appeal before ld. CIT (A)-III, Jaipur is pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... admit the same and pay taxes thereon. But for the survey, appellant would not have disclosed the aforesaid unaccounted income. In the 5return of income filed after survey, the appellant did not show the undisclosed income admitted during survey. This conduct of the appellant proves her guilt in furnishing inaccurate particulars of her income in the return filed. In view of the above discussion, the penalty imposed in respect of undisclosed income of Rs. 43,89,548/- is confirmed." 4. Now the assessee is before us. 4.1. The ld. A/R submitted that the penalty had been levied merely by borrowing the observation and conclusion made in the quantum proceedings and no separate observations had been made in the penalty order as to how the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t directly credited in the capital account which is a clerical mistake, but it does not establish that assessee has concealed the income or furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. There is no difference between the income disclosed in the return and income assessed by the AO and confirmed by ld. CIT (A). He further relied on the case of Smt. Durga Devi Somani vs. ITO, Kishangrh in ITA No. 672/JP/2011 wherein it has been held that though surrendered in assessment the assessee can take fresh pleas in the penalty proceedings which by settled law are distinct and separate, which has not been carried out in the case of the assessee by the AO. As the ld. AO gave the findings in the order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the basis of quantum pr....