TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 707
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), CIT vs S.L.N. Traders (2)(2012) 341 ITR 235(Karnataka) and CIT vs Careers Education & Infotech Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 257 (P & H). 2.1. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Ms. Mahua Sarkar, strongly defended the penalty order by contending that the assessee deposited cash in the accounts, the source of which was not explained by the assessee, therefore, there is clear cut concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, thus, the penalty was rightly upheld by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). Reliance was placed upon the decision in MAK DATA P. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2013) 263 CTR (SC) 1 : (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) : (2013) 94 DTR (SC) 379. 2.2. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that there was an AIR information with the Assessing Officer that the assessee has deposited cash in saving bank accounts maintained with Axis Bank Ltd. (Rs.13,46,765/-), Sarswat Cooperative Bank Ltd.(Rs.15,01,233/-) and Standard Chartered Bank (Rs.18,87,750/-). It was further notice by the Assessing Officer that none of these accounts were disclosed to the Department in the return file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee during assessment proceedings and the mistake was bona fide. In that situation, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court took a decision that penalty is not leviable. However, in the present appeal, as discussed above, there is conscious concealment of income by the assessee, therefore, being on different facts, the decision relied upon is not applicable to the facts of the present appeal. In the case of CIT & Anors. Vs S.L. N. Traders (2012) 341 ITR 235, the explanation of the assessee was accepted by the CIT(A) as well as by the Tribunal. Whereas, in the present appeal, the ld. Assessing Officer, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Tribunal has not accepted the explanation of the assessee. In that case, the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer submitting that the assessee could not produced the creditors or confirmation letters and there was no lack of bona fide on the part of the assessee, thus, the facts are different in the present appeal. Likewise, in the case of CIT vs Careers Education and Infotech Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the assessee surrendered additional income, during survey, to buy peace with the Department and filed a revised ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise. Assessee has only stated that he had surrendered the additional sum of Rs. 40,74,000/-with a view to avoid 7 litigation, buy peace and to channelize the energy and resources towards productive work and to make amicable settlement with the income tax department. Statute does not recognize those types of defences under the explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the Appellant-assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty. We are of the view that the surrender of income in this case is not voluntary in the sense that the offer of surrender was made in view of detection made by the AO in the search conducted in the sister concern of the assessee. In that situation, it cannot be said that the surrender of income was voluntary. AO during the course of assessment proceedings has noticed that certain documents comprising of share application forms, bank statements, memorandum of association of companies, affidavits, copies of Income Tax Returns and assessment orders and blank....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Explanation 1.-Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act,- (A) such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the 48[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner to be false, or (B) such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Explanation 2.-Where the source of any receipt, deposit, outgoing or investment in any assessment year is claimed by any person to be an amount which had been added in computing the income or deducted in computing the loss in the assessment of such person for any earlier assessment year or years but in respect of which no p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Act, 1989 shall apply to and in relation to any assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year and references in this section to the other provisions of this Act shall be construed as references to those provisions as for the time being in force and applicable to the relevant assessment year. Considering the provision of the Act, material facts available on record, and the ratio laid down in following cases, it can be concluded that it was a conscious act of the assessee to hide something from the Department. I. CIT vs Satish Medical Agencies 277 ITR 394 (All.) II. Jyoti Laxman Konkar vs CIT 292 ITR 163 (Bom.), III. Deepak Construction Company vs CIT 293 ITR 285(Guj.) IV. CIT vs Mahavir Prasad Bajaj 298 ITR 109(Jhar.) V. D & H Secheron Electrods Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 281 ITR 421 (MP.) VI. Shri Nithyakalyani Textiles Ltd. Vs DCIT 282 ITR 154 (Mad.) VII. LMP Precision Engineering Company Ltd. Vs DCIT (330 ITR 93) (Guj.) VIII. CIT vs Deep Chand 336 ITR 292 (P & H) IX. Sethy Industries Corporation vs DCIT 338 ITR 243 (P &H) X. B.Damodar V.B. Jewellers vs JCIT 353 ITR 206 (Karna.) XI. Standard Hind Company vs CIT (20....