TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 740
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee. In the course of survey statement of Shri Manoj Sharma, partner in the assessee firm was recorded wherein he admitted income of Rs. 47,04,960/- as difference of disputed/bogus purchases and sales for the year under consideration. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.01.2013, wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 2,95,08,260/-, inter alia, mainly on account of undisclosed income of Rs. 47,04,960/- admitted in the course of survey action and penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act were initiated simultaneously for concealment of income. No appeal was preferred by the assessee against the order of assessment and the matter attained finality. 2.2. `The Assessing Officer took up penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and issued letter dated 30.03.2013 to the assessee calling upon it to explain as to why penalty should not be levied thereunder. The assessee furnished its reply (extracted on pg. 4 of the penalty order) submitting that the income in respect of disputed/bogus purchases of Rs. 47,04,960/- was made only due to the fact that the parties referred to in the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urchases are bogus and the assessee himself arrived at the undisclosed income of Rs. 47,04,960/-. The CIT(A) failed to note that the admitted additional income was due to the investigations carried out by the department and it is not a voluntary offer. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the onus to establish the identity and genuineness of any purchase appearing in the books lies with the assessee which assessee had failed to satisfy during the assessment proceedings. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee did not prefer appeal against the order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. 6. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and matter may be decided according to law. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add new ground which may be necessary." 3.2 The learned D.R. was heard in support of the grounds raised (supra). It was further submitted that voluntary surrender of income by the assessee in the course of survey proceedings, subject to dropping of penalty proceedings, does ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rm has also been filed in which it is stated that pursuant to the survey action under section 133A of the Act in the assessee's case on 08/01/2013, additional income was declared for three years as under on the same income:- S.No. Asst.Year Amount in (Rs.) 1. 2009-10 59,77,088 2. 2010-11 47,04,960 3. 2011-12 36,72,900 Total 1,43,54,948/- It is stated that while penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer for all these assessment years (supra), penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was only levied for this assessment year i.e.2010-11 and not for the other two years. Other arguments stated therein was in respect of the proposition put up in its sub missions before the CIT(A). The Ld. Representative for the assessee prayed that the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act be upheld and Revenue's appeal dismissed. 3.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the CIT(A) has deleted the penalty of Rs. 14,53....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ived income from leasing the same, had after filing a return claiming deduction of a sum of Rs. 4,125 and Rs. 16,348 towards building maintenance and furniture repairs respectively, himself volunteered to offer these sums as part of his income on account of the difficulty encountered by him in securing necessary vouchers and receipts. That conduct of the assessee according to the Revenue was by itself sufficient to show that there was concealment. The Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705, has pointed out that not every case of nondisclosure warrants imposition of penalty as the assessee may forgo a deduction or offer higher sums for taxation for a hundred and one different reasons and all of them cannot be regarded as reasons which are unworthy 0] acceptance. The Supreme Court in that case held that the Tribunal which had held that penalty was not imposable having regard to the circumstances in the case had held so rightly. The Supreme Court observed that from the assessee agreeing to additions to his income, it does not follow that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income. There may be a hundred and one re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of income. As per the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the question is whether the assessee has offered any explanation for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the case own hand we find that the requirement laid down by the Hon'ble Court has been met by the assessee inasmuch as, as observed by the CIT(A), the assessee's explanation (supra) which appears plausible and which explanation, though brushed aside by the Assessing Officer as an afterthought, has not been brought out or found to be false in respect of furnishing of particulars. We, therefore, uphold this view of the CIT(A) and consequently uphold her order directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied in the case on hand for assessment year 2009-10. Consequently, Revenue's grounds raised at S.No.1 to 6 are dismissed. 3.4.2 Another contention of the assessee raised in the course of hearing before the Bench was that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act may be levied either for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and that the Assessing Officer is entitled to levy the penalty under the....