TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 488
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The dispute in the present appeal relates to assessment year 2007-08. During the financial year 2006-07 relevant for the assessment year 2007-08 a survey was conducted on 10.08.2006. The assessee submitted its return for the above assessment year on 31.10.2017 and on the basi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the same has been confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by the impugned order dated 09.08.2012. In the appeal following four questions of law have been raised:- "(I) Whether the ITAT was justified in law and on facts in deleting the penalty under Section 271 (1)(C) even when there was clear curt case of concealment? (II) Whether the ITAT was corr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... persons?" The effect of all of them is virtually the same as to whether the Tribunal is justified in deleting the penalty made under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the assessee has surrendered and disclosed the sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under compulsion on the basis of the survey rather voluntarily of its own violation and as such was ex facie guilty of non-disclosure of full ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had paid tax on it. Since the aforesaid income was disclosed it cannot be a case of non-disclosure of any income. At the same time, no incorrect or inaccurate particulars were furnished in respect of the said disclosure or any other part of the income shown in the return. The Tribunal following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Ahmedabad Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., 23....