TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 679
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pay taxes thereon. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(C) without appreciating that the assessee had concealed his income and furnished inaccurate particulars by undervaluing his stock to the extent of Rs. 38,19,474/- 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in the deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(C) without appreciating that the assessee concealed his income to the extent of Rs. 38,19,474/- which was detected only during the course of the survey proceedings and a sum of Rs. 7,60,800/-, which was determined during the course of assessment proceedings; both these amounts, aggregating to Rs. 45,80,274/- not having been declared by him in the Return of Income filed by him for the relevant Assessment Year. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) by not appreciating the facts that the assessment order in which the concealed income was brought to tax in the hands of the assessee & on which the impugned penalty was levied, has been accepted b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entative vehemently contended that the assessee had declared additional income only on account of detection made by the department on account of survey operations. Had the survey operations not taken place, assessee would not have disclosed additional income and thus it is a clear case of concealment of particulars of income and therefore penalty is leviable. Thus, he prayed for sustenance of order of penalty. 6.2 On the other hand, learned AR of the assessee contended that additional income was disclosed only on account of undervaluation of closing stock. There is no difference in quantitative stock. The assessee has been following Last-in-firstout [LIFO] for the purpose of valuation but for the insistence of the AO, the above has been valued at First-in-first-out [FIFO] method. On account of this, the addition was offered on a condition not to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He prayed that there was no particulars of income have been furnished by the assessee. Therefore penalty cannot be levied. 7. We heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue in the present appeal is whether the AO is justified in levying penalty of Rs. 13,23,380/- u/s 27....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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." 7. The AO, in our view, shall not be carried away by the plea of the assessee like "voluntary disclosure", "buy peace", "avoid litigation", "amicable settlement", etc. to explain away its conduct. The question is whether the assessee has offered any explanation for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Explanation to Section 271(1) raises a presumption of concealment, when a difference is noticed by the AO, between reported and assessed income. The burden is then on the assessee to show otherwise, by cogent and reliable evidence. When the initial onus placed by the explanation, has been discharged by him, the onus shifts on the Revenue to show that the amount in question constituted the income and not otherwise. 8. Assessee has only stated that he had surrendered the additional sum of Rs. 40,74,000/- with a view to avoid litigation, buy peace and to channelize the energy and resources towards productive work and to make amicable settlement with the income tax department. Statute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The notice issued by the Then Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) is vague and does not specify in particular the default of the respondent. There was non-application of mind while issuing the show cause notice to the assessee to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 3. The order of the learned Assessing Officer in passing the order u/s 271(1)(c) is without jurisdiction. 3. the notice issued by the then Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) is liable to be struck down as it is not in accordance with law. 4. The notice issued by the then Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) is liable to be held as invalid in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and consequently the order levying penalty is liable to be cancelled. 5. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the order of the Commissioner of Income tax is legal and sustainable in total. 6. The appeal filed by the appellant is frivolous and liable to be dismissed. 15. We shall deal with the very maintainability of the present cross-objections. From the grounds of cross objections, it is clear that the assessee has raised the issue of validity of show cause issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of ....