TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1585
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the annexure 'A' enclosed with statement which was prepared by directors of the company suo-moto." 2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant company returned income of Rs. 1,87,697/- on 29.11.2006 from the business of developer. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) as well as under section 115WE(2) were issued on 2.11.2007. Thereafter an action under section 133A of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was carried at Registered Office, site office as well as corporate office of the assessee between 26.2.2008 to 28.2.2008. During the course of survey proceedings, statement of one Shri Ram Kishore Jat son of Shri Ram Lal Jat employed at its site office was recorded. In his statement said Shri Ram Kishore Jat had made the following assertions (a) Agricultural land measuring 25-30 bigha was purchased by the company in his name and the same land was got registered in the name of the company thereafter. The original payment was made by the company and Shri Ram Kishore Jat has not made any investment in the land which shows that the company has benami land transactions. (b) The company has purchased agricultural land o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation at the business places of the assessee company. Since there was unexplained investment made in purchase of agricultural land, the return so revised was not treated voluntary. Disregarding the said return where assessee has declared additional income as income from business, the AO proceeded to assess the income on the basis of original return of income of Rs. 1,87,697/- and made addition therein for Rs. 3.02,33,672/- as unexplained investment under section 69B of the Act. The total income thus stood assessed at Rs. 3,04,21,470/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars in respect of the aforesaid income of Rs. 3,02,33,672/-. 3. In response to show cause notice, the assessee furnished a reply on 2.3.2010 contending therein that the ld. CIT (A) has directed the AO to assess income of Rs. 3,02,33,672/- as income from business and as there is no concealed income, hence no penalty can be levied on the assessee. 4. The said reply of the assessee was found not tenable as the assessee did not revise the return prior to the date of survey. Such return was not taken as voluntary. Since the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urnishing inaccurate particulars of income though all the purchases made by the assessee were duly registered with the Sub Registrar and were evidenced by the documentary evidence and all the actual payments and particulars of investment were duly disclosed in the balance sheet furnished with the return of income. It, therefore, could not be a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee, therefore, requested the ld. CIT (A) that this is neither a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income nor concealment of income and as such penalty so imposed is required to be deleted. 6. The ld. CIT (A) perused the survey record and statement taken during the course of survey. This included registered sale deed for purchase of land as well as certain loose papers which were minutely examined by her. Considering the submissions, he opined that the assessee has made partial presentation of facts before her. She did not agree that no evidence was found at the time of survey as from the statement recorded during the course of survey, it was very clear that the assessee has acquired large tracks of land and in order to evade payment of stamp duty, the assessee was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the materials collected at the assessment stage including the admission made by the assessee. The Tribunal was, accordingly, justified in confirming the levy of penalty. No question of law arose out of its order. 7. The ld. CIT (A) vide para 7.1 of the impugned order also took support from the judgment by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Dr. R.C. Gupta & Co. [1980] 122 ITR 567 where it was held that penalty under section 271(l)(c) could validly be levied for concealing the profit of the company on income recorded in books and not shown in the return but assessee's agreeing to inclusion in his assessable income. In the concluding para she concurred with the Assessing Officer that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposable on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars to the extent of Rs. 3,02,33,672/- and as such the penalty imposed for Rs. 1.01,76,653/- stood confirmed by her order dated 7.6.2011. 8. Assailing the impugned order, ld. Counsel for the assessee made elaborate written submissions dated 10.1.2012 and 16.4.13 and also filed paper book consisting of 135 pages. It has been contended that in the survey proceedin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed with the original return has been taken as a cost for deducing its income in the subsequent year of sale for assessment purposes. The tax rate for company in assessment years 2007-08 and 08-09 is the same as the tax rate in assessment year 2006-07. The assessee, therefore, agreed to prepone the payment of tax to assessment year 2006-07 instead of its payment in subsequent years i.e. 2007-08 and 08-09 and in survey proceedings agreed to offer an income of Rs. 3,02,33,672/- as its business income so that it becomes cost of stock of land of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07 and the consequent profit in subsequent years 2007-08 & 08-09 comes down by that amount. All these admissions were made as the assessee was advised to do so by the survey party, The explanation is not found to be false or mala fide by the lower authorities. In any event, the case of the appellant is that the addition of Rs. 3,02,33,672/- has been made only on the basis of statement elicited during the course of survey and same not being supported by any documentary evidence or material found as a result of survey, did not have any evidentiary value in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal. It is after considering the entire gamut of arguments advanced by the assessee as well as the surrender made in the revised return, the Assessing Authority held the assessee guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars and imposed only minimum penalty equal to 100% of tax sought to be evaded. The Ld. CIT (A) did not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the assessee in support of his explanation filed in penalty proceedings and thus upheld the decision of assessing authority by a reasoned order. The statement given by the assessee during the course of survey proceedings is relevant material which cannot be disregarded in this case for imposing penalty on him. There is thus no merit in the grounds raised by the assessee in appeal which need to be rejected. 11. We have heard parties with reference to material on record and case laws brought to our notice. This is a case of a company which was incorporated on 12.07.2005, a period which falls in assessment year 2006-07 impugned before us. The company was incorporated for carrying out business as dealer in lands. The appellant has sold only a small piece of land for Rs. 23,20,000/- to one of its Director during the year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents reflecting payment as "on money" is available on record of the assessing authority. The Ld. CIT (A), however, took the position that as the revised return was not filed suo moto on discovery of bona fide mistake, she upheld the action of the Assessing Authority that the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income and confirmed the penalty so imposed by him. 14. On the peculiar facts of this case, we find that there was no omission or any wrong statement in the return of income originally filed by the assessee on 29.11.2006. He, however, revised the return within the statutory period as provided under section 139(5) of the Act by disclosing business income of Rs. 3,02,33,672/- and taking the same as cost of stock-in-trade held by him as on 31.3.2006. This was so done as the survey party required him to do so and by doing so it did not make any difference in payment of taxes to the appellant in either of the years i.e. in the year under consideration nor in the subsequent years being the year of sale of such land to a company having FDI funds because the tax rate in both the years was the same. In other words, the sale price being fixed and admitted by revenue in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atter, the return that came to be revised was in good faith and because of the insistence of survey party and not because the assessee actually made any investment over and above what was disclosed in the books of account. The appellant has tendered an explanation before the Assessing Authority that the Ld. CIT (A) has accepted the assessee's disclosure of income under the head Income from business and there was thus no concealment of income made by the assessee requiring liability of penalty on him. The Assessing Authority in the penalty proceedings made no field enquiry into the facts to find out as to whether the assessee really made any investment over and above what was disclosed originally in the books of account. The explanation thus tendered by the assessee has not been found to be false. A surrender rested on statement elucidated during the course of survey has no evidentiary value. This principle is fairly stands affirmed by Apex court in the case of S. Khader Khan Son (supra). The perusal of orders of authorities below reveals that there is no positive material on record to show that there was any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....187,697/-on 29.11.2006. In assessee's case, there was a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act conducted on 26.02.2007 to 28.02.2008 at the business premises of assessee company. 18. During the course of survey operation, certain incriminating documents were found and impounded and were controverted with the Directors of the company The incriminating documents relating to loose papers having details in respect of purchase of agricultural land and the actual purchase consideration paid. The details found noted on some of the loose papers were recorded at a lesser value than to the actual value of the transaction. During the course of survey, the Department has recorded statement under section 131 of the Act with some of the persons relating to the assessee company i.e. Shri Nagesh Bhaskar, Shri Ram Kishore Jat and Shri Sunil Kumar Bansal, Director of the Company admitted the fact that the company has made undisclosed investment in purchase of agricultural land, wherein the real transaction was recorded at a lesser value in the regular books of account. The other Directors of the company Shri Atma Ram Gupta and Shri Vimal Singhvi have also admitted this fact. Thereaft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 69B on account of unexplained investment in purchase of agricultural land treated as business income. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On 17.02.2010, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271(1)(c) be imposed. 21. In response to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has submitted vide letter dated 02.03.2010 by stating that the CIT (Appeals) has reversed the order of the Assessing Officer directed him to treat the unexplained investment under section 69B as business income, the return filed after the survey was voluntary and no concealment was made and requested to drop the penalty proceedings. 22. The Assessing Officer, after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee filed original return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 on 29.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs. 1, 87,697/-. Survey was conducted on 26.02.2008 to 28.02.2008. Till the date of survey, no revised return was filed. Only after the survey, the assessee filed revised return of Rs. 3,04,21,369/-. Had the survey not been conducted,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th regard to undisclosed income by way of loose papers and other incriminating documents, the assessee has offered the income of Rs. 3,02,33,672/- as business income Therefore, the income offered by the assessee by way of revised return was rightly rejected by the Assessing Officer and it is a clear case of concealment. The assessee in his original return of income not filing correct and true and complete particulars and by doing the same, it has concealed the income. He supported the order passed by the CIT (A) and submitted that the penalty may be confirmed. 27. Both parties have been heard and perused the materials available on record. 28. The assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 1,87,697/- on 29.11.2006. After the survey, the assessee has filed revised return of income of Rs. 3,04,21,370/- on 27.03.2008. During the survey some incriminating documents relating to purchase of property were found and the same were confronted with Shri Sunil Bansal, Director of the assessee company. Shri Sunil Bansal admitted the fact that the company had made undisclosed investment in purchase of agricultural land, wherein the real transaction was recorded at a lesser value in the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee and thereafter recording their statement, which were confronted with the Director of the assessee company Shri Sunil Bansal admitted the same that they have recorded lesser value in the books. Thereafter, the Directors of the assessee company calculated the concealed income and filed revised return on 28.03.2008. Therefore, the revised return filed by the assessee cannot be considered as voluntary return and the Assessing Officer has rightly rejected the same. Even, in fact, before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has not given any reason for filing the revised return. Insofar as the argument of the counsel for the assessee is concerned, the statement given during the course of survey have no value in the eyes of law, it has no application for the simple reason that if the Assessing Officer proceeding to impose penalty simply on the basis of statement recorded during the course of survey, the argument of the Id. Counsel for the assessee may be acceptable. But, in the present case, during the survey, the Department found incriminating material, statement of the employees and Directors of the company were recorded and thereafter, the Directors of the assessee compan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....29.11.2006, which has been filed subsequent to the survey, the assessee filed revised return on 28.03.2008. It is found from the record that the assessee has not furnished true and complete particulars of income at the time of filing original return of income on 29.11.2006 and the revised return filed by the assessee on 28.03.2008 is not voluntary. The assessee by filing inaccurate particulars concealed the income. Thus, it is a fit case to impose penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 37. The first appellate authority, after careful consideration of the issue and distinguishing various case law cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and by referring catena of case law in the cases of Late M.S. Mohammed Marzook (supra), Mahabit Prasad Bajaj (supra) and LMP Precision Engg. Co. Ltd. (supra), confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. Since the assessee, in this case, by filing inaccurate particulars and concealed income, it is a fit case to impose penalty and there is no valid reason to interfere with the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), the order of the CIT (A) is upheld. REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 255(4) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 As there is a difference....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e company were shown to him. When confronted with all the above evidence, Shri Sunil Bansal admitted the fact that the company has made undisclosed investments in purchase of agricultural land wherein the real transactions were recorded at a lesser value in the regular books of account while payment in cash had been made to the sellers which was not recorded in the books of account. This fact was also admitted by the other Directors of the company namely Shri Atma Ram Gupta and Shri Vimal Singhvi. Thereafter, all the directors submitted a detailed working of undisclosed investment made in purchase of agricultural land in all the years i.e. AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 as per Annexure-A to the statement of Sh. Sunil Bansal. On 27.03.2008, the assessee-company furnished a revised return declaring total income of Rs. 3,04,21,370/- wherein an additional income of Rs. 3,02,33,672/-(which was detected during the course of survey operations as unexplained investment in purchase of agricultural land) was declared as income from business or profession. While finalizing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer made the following observations on pages 6 & 7 of his order. "In view of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out whether any other activity other than sale and purchase of land has been carried out by the appellant. The dispute is not about the quantum but only of head of income. As the only activity of the company is trading in real estate, the income offered by the appellant may be business income only. The AO is therefore directed to tax the income u/s 69B under the head Business income. The ground of appeal is decided in favour of the appellant" 6. Both the parties have accepted the order of the CIT (A); therefore, the above order of the CIT (A) has become final. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(l)(c), amounting to Rs. 1,01,76,653/- vide his order dated 26.03.2010. The CIT (A) sustained the penalty. The assessee filed appeal before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal. The learned Accountant Member vide his proposed order cancelled the penalty. The learned Judicial Member did not agree with the proposed order of the learned Accountant Member and wrote a dissent order in which he proposed to sustain the order of the CIT (A) thereby confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. In the above circumstances, the matter has been referred to me to answer the question as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of income. In the penalty order, the Assessing Officer has invoked Explanation (1) to Section 271(l)(c). Explanation (1) does not apply for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) under Explanation (1) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is contrary to law and the same should be cancelled. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decisions:- (a) Dy. CIT v. Nepa Ltd. [2015] 58 taxmann.com 137 (Ind.) (b) CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 12. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) is barred by limitation. He stated that the penalty proceedings have been initiated by issue of notice u/s 271(l)(c) dated 31.03.2008. As per Section 275(1)(c) no order imposing penalty shall be passed after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings have been initiated or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. This period of limitation expired on 30.09.2008; therefore, the penalty imposed on 26.03.2010 is bar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(l)(c) by the Assessing Officer was rightly sustained by the CIT (A) and the learned Judicial Member, and the same should be upheld. 14. In the rejoinder, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 9 and stated that merely because the assessee surrendered the income cannot be sufficient to levy the penalty u/s 271(l)(c), 15. I have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before me. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee was that the disclosure was made at the behest of the survey party and there was no evidence of actual payment of on-money by the assessee for purchase of land. I find this contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee to be factually incorrect. During the course of survey, large number of documents were found. The statements of the employees of the assessee were recorded. The employees of the assessee, namely Shri Ramkishore Jat and Shri Nagesh Bhaskar, have clearly admitted that the land was purchased at much higher rate than the rate mentioned in the Registry. The documentary evidence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r and above what has been recorded in the books of account for purchase of land. This income has been voluntarily offered by the assessee and therefore, it should be accepted as business income and not as income from undisclosed sources. The contention of the learned Counsel before the CIT (A), has been recorded by him in his order at paragraph 2, which reads as under:- "The contention of the A/R is that the appellant is engaged in the activity of real estate. The purchase of land by the appellant is its trading activity. The assessee company has voluntarily accepted to have incurred an amount of Rs. 3,02,33,672/- on purchase of these land over and above what has been recorded in books of account. As such this amount needs to be considered as business income instead of income from undisclosed source u/s 69B. The contention of the A/R is considered. The AO has not pointed out whether any other activity other than sale and purchase of land has been carried out by the appellant. The dispute is not about the quantum but only of head of income. As the only activity of the company is trading in real estate, the income offered by the appellant may be business income only. The AO is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court passed in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157. Therefore, it would be relevant to look at the facts of the case and the finding of the Hon'ble Madras High Court. The fact of the case was that a survey was conducted in the premises of the assessee-firm. One of the partners in his sworn statement offered an additional income of Rs. 20 lakhs for the assessment year 2001-02 and Rs. 30 lakhs for the assessment year 2002-03. However, the said statement was retracted by the assessee through its letter dated August 3, 2001, stating that the partner from whom a statement was recorded during the survey operation under section 133A, was new to the management and he could not answer the enquiries made and as such, he agreed to an ad hoc addition. The Assessing Officer based on the admissions made by the assessee, which were directly relatable to the defects noticed during the action under section 133A of the Act, recomputed the assessment. The order was set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and this order was upheld by the Tribunal. On appeal to the High Court, the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Their Lordships of the M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y irrelevant. On the other hand, their Lordships in paragraph 1 itself mentioned that an admission is extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said to be conclusive. In paragraph 5 again, while concluding the principles laid down, their Lordships reiterated that the statement recorded during the course of survey u/s 133A are not conclusive piece of evidence by itself. That, in the above mentioned case the partner of the assessee-firm, soon after making the statement, has retracted it by filing a letter before the Revenue Authorities. Considering the totality of the facts, the CIT (A) had deleted the additions. The ITAT has upheld the order of the CIT (A) and their Lordships of the Madras High Court held that the addition based purely upon the statement of the partner, which was retracted by the assessee, cannot be the sole basis for making the addition. 21. That the facts in the case of the assessee are altogether different. Here, the statement is based upon the detailed working of undisclosed income. The chart of working of the undisclosed income is annexed to the statement of the Director of the assessee-company. The assessee never retracted such statement. On th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce paid by the assessee was much more than the purchase price recorded in the sale deed. The assessee made the surrender of additional income by filing the revised return. The Assessing Officer assessed the additional income declared by the assessee as unexplained investment u/s 69B. On appeal, the CIT (A), accepting the assessee's contention, directed the Assessing Officer to tax the additional income of Rs. 3,02,33,672/- under the head 'business income'. Thus, it is conclusively established that in the return of income for the year under consideration the assessee has not disclosed the correct income. The business income to the extent of Rs. 3,02,33,672/- remained undisclosed as per return of income. Whether such undisclosed income is investment in the stock and whether the assessee will get the set off of the same in the year in which such stock would be sold would not be the relevant consideration so far as the levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) is concerned. For the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c), it has to be seen whether for the year under consideration the assessee concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. What was t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imposing penalty would offend principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. Thus once the proceedings are initiated on one ground, the penalty should also be imposed on the same ground. Where the basis of the initiation of penalty proceedings is not identical with the ground on which the penalty was imposed, the imposition of penalty is not valid. The validity of the order of penalty must be determined with reference to the information, facts and materials in the hands of the authority imposing the penalty at the time the order was passed and further discovery of facts subsequent to the imposition of penalty cannot validate the order of penalty which, when passed, was not sustainable. 61. The Assessing Officer is empowered under the Act to initiate penalty proceedings once he is satisfied in the course of any proceedings that there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of total income under clause (c). Concealment, furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are different. Thus the Assessing Officer while issuing notice has to come to the conclusion that whether is it a case of concealment of income or is it a case of furnishing of inaccurate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, there is no illegality in levying the penalty with reference to only one offence. It is not a case where the notice was issued for one offence and the penalty is levied for another offence. Therefore, in my opinion, the above decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) does not support the case of the assessee. 27. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee was that the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and at the same time invoked the Explanation (1) to section 271(l)(c). Explanation (1) to Section 271(l)(c) would be applicable only for concealment of income and not for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of Nepa Ltd. (supra). The relevant finding of the ITAT, Indore Bench reads as under:- '8. Explanation (1) is a deeming provision and it is applicable when an amount is added or disallowed in computation of total income is deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj), in which it was held (Head Note):-"It is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to state whether penalty was being levied for concealment of particulars of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of income had been furnished by the assessee."' 28. From the above, it is clear that in the above mentioned case the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) without pointing out the offence under which assessee is liable to be penalized. While in the case of the assessee, the penalty proceedings have been initiated, both for concealment of income and for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the above mentioned case before the ITAT Indore Bench, the penalty has been levied in respect of provision of doubtful debts which have been duly shown by the assessee and debited in the audited profit and loss account. While in the case of the assessee, in the original return of income, the assessee disclosed total income of Rs. 1,87,697/-. During the course of survey, there was detection of undisclosed income and its investment in the purchase of agricultural land. Afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evy of penalty under Explanation (1); though in the earlier part of his order, the Assessing Officer has discussed the main section as well as Explanation (1) thereof and has also mentioned the circumstances under which the Explanation (1) would be applicable. But, thereafter, he discussed the facts of the assessee's case pointed out how there was a furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee and then levied the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the concluding paragraph, when the penalty has been finally levied, the Assessing Officer has not relied upon the Explanation (1) to Section 271(l)(c). Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee that Assessing Officer levied penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income under Explanation (1) is contrary to the facts on record. The Assessing Officer has not invoked Explanation (1). Therefore, this contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee is also rejected. 31. It was also contended by the learned Counsel for the assessee that the levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) is barred by limitation, because the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later.]" 32. From the above, it is evident that as per Section 275(1)(a), the Assessing Officer can levy the penalty within six months from the end of the month in which order of the CIT (A) is received provided the assessment order was subject matter of the appeal to the CIT (A) u/s 246/246A of the Income-tax Act. As per proviso to clause (a) which is inserted by Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 01.06.2003, where the relevant appellate order is passed by the CIT (A) on or after the first day of June 2003, then the Assessing Officer can levy the penalty within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the CIT (A) is received by the Commissioner. Admittedly, the order of the CIT (A) is dated 16.10.2008. The exact date of the receipt of this order of the CIT (A) in the office of the CIT is not furnished before me, but it has to be after the date of the order of the CIT (A). Therefore, presuming the service of the order within reasonable time, the same would be received in the office of the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....failed to take any objection in the matter, the declaration of income made by the assessee in his revised returns and the explanation that he had done so to buy peace with the Department and to come out of vexed litigation could be treated as bona fide in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, no penalty could be levied for concealment." 35. However, the facts of the assessee's case are altogether different. In the case under consideration before me, as already noted, there was survey at the assessee's premises. During the course of survey, various incriminating documents, including the purchase deed for purchase of agricultural land, were found. The statements of the employees were recorded. On the basis of those documents and statements, it was established that the assessee was recording the purchase of the land at a much lesser value than the actual purchase price. When these facts were confronted to the Director of the Company, he admitted to have made the cash payment for purchase of agricultural land which was not recorded in the books of account. He, with the help of those documents, prepared a detailed chart and worked out the un-recorded investmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in details in this order. 38. The matter will now go back to the Division Bench for passing the order as per majority view. ORDER R.P. Tolani, Judicial Member - Since there was a difference of opinion between the learned Members, constituting a Division Bench of I.T.A.T., Jaipur and the Hon'ble President, I.T.A.T. nominated Shri G.D. Agrawal, Vice President as Third Member. The Hon'ble Third Member vide order dated 11.09.2015 concurred with the findings of the Hon'ble Judicial Member and held as under:- "After considering the arguments of both the sides and the facts of the case, I agree with the finding of the Assessing Officer in the penalty order that the assessee did not disclose the correct purchase consideration of the agricultural land. The purchase price of the land was recorded at a lesser value in the regular books of account. These facts were detected by the Revenue as a result of survey at the assessee's premises. During the course of survey, the Director of the Company admitted these facts. Thus, it is a clear case where the assessee furnished incorrect particulars in the original return of income with regard to purchase price of agricultu....