TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1090
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal") read as under (only difference in the amount):- "1. The Learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming penalty of Rs. 45,900/- (for A.Y. 2005-06) (Rs. 30,600/- for A.Y. 2007-08) levied by Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c). 2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the facts and circumstances under which the Appellant had filed original return of income and had filed revised return of income before receipt of any inquiry or notice u/s.148 from the Assessing Officer. 3. The Learned CIT (A) failed to consider the fact that the penalty order pass by the Assessing Officer was only on the basis of Tax Evasion Petition and the penalty order does not record satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that assessee has concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 4. The Learned CIT(A) erred & ignored the fact that in penalty notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) issued to the assessee the Assessing Officer has not cancelled the sentence "whether assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income". RELIEF CLAIMED IN APPEAL 1. The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to delete ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bank account, the copy of the affidavit was submitted before the AO in re-opening proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. The A.O. observed that the assessee has filed return of income on 28-02-2011 which is not at all a revised return as per the provisions of Section 139(5) of the Act of 1961 as the time limit for furnishing a revised return of income for assessment year 2005-06 has lapsed on 31st March, 2007. The assessee had filed original return of income with the ITO, Ward 21(3)(3) but the assessee had filed alleged revised return of income with ACIT, Cir. 2, Kalyan. It was observed by the A.O. that the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in his bank account in September, 2004 and still did not declare the said income in the return of income which was filed with Revenue on 09-08-2005. It was observed by the AO that Dodeja family was under enquiry and investigation in respect of tax evasion petition , from October 2010 and thus it could not be said that revised return of income was filed prior to the enquiry and issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act.The AO held that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- in his SB A/c in United Bank of In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence the alleged revised return of income is not a valid one , as the same has not been filed as per provisions of Section 139(1) and 139(5) of the Act and further the time limit for filing of revised return of income expired on 31-03- 2007. It was observed by the A.O. that the department started the enquiry regarding the cash deposits by the Dodeja family on receipt of tax evasion petition from September, 2010, whereas the alleged revised return of income was filed in February, 2011 only. The AO also observed that the assessee had filed the alleged revised return of income in February, 2011 with ITO, Kalyan while the original return of income was filed in August, 2005 with ITO, Mumbai. The AO also observed that the assessee has not disclosed the said bank account with Union Bank of India, Shahad , Ulhasnagar in the original return of income filed with the Revenue. Thus, the A.O. rejected the contentions of the assessee that the assessee had disclosed the said income voluntarily before the same was detected by the Revenue. The assessee also contended that he had deposited cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the bank account and the same has not been disclosed as per the advice of the ex-tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11. The assessee deposited cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- in bank account maintained with Union Bank of India, Shahad Branch which was not considered income by the assessee while filing original return of income as per the advice of Advocate ex-tax consultant for more than 30 years who advised assessee said amount was not chargeable to tax. The assessee had filed revised return of income on 28-02-2011 with ITO, Kalyan wherein said cash deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/- was included as income in the revised return of income filed with the Revenue. It is submitted that the assessee is not an educated person and does not understand the complex income tax procedures. It was submitted that the said revised return of income was filed prior to issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had submitted bonafide explanations and hence the penalty cannot be levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has filed revised return and the said income was declared and due taxes have been paid to the Revenue. Thus it was submitted that penalty of Rs. 45,900/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as confirmed by learned CIT(A) cannot be sustained and nee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... return of income filed by the assessee on 28- 02-2011 including the said undisclosed income of Rs. 1,50,000/- which was deposited in cash in an undisclosed bank account with Union Bank of India would have never come into notice of the Revenue and there would have been loss of Revenue. Merely because tax evasion petition is filed against the taxpayer does not mean that the tax-payer has concealed income or furnished in-accurate particulars of income and it could not be said with the certainty that the Revenue will in each of such cases shall proceed against the taxpayer by re-opening the concluded assessment in each and every tax evasion petition filed against the tax-payer. The tax-payer can always come forward and explain and account for its sources of income with the return of income filed with the Revenue. The tax-payer can also come forward with an explanation that certain receipts were not included as income in the return of income filed with the Revenue as the said receipts do not bear the character of income within the four corners of charging provisions of the Act or the receipt had a character of being an exempt income within statutory provisions of the Act of 1961 . Ther....