TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (5) TMI 45
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the assessee, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 3,77,950 in terms of the surrender made by the assessee vide his letter dated October 18, 1993. The penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated by the same order, though separately. Vide his order dated November 21, 1995, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. However, in regard to the initiation of penalty proceedings on the surrender of the income of Rs. 3,77,950 it was held that the appeal was premature as no penalty had been imposed by that time. Subsequently, the order of penalty was passed against which the assessee again preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion of the word "deliberately" by the Finance Act of 1964 the legal position i.e. applicable to penalty proceedings as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Anwar Ali's case [1970] 76 ITR 696 and Khoday Eswarsa and Sons case [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC) does not materially alter.' As regards, imposition of penalty on the trading addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) I have perused the observations of learned counsel that the addition may be good for the purposes of taxation as the appellant has not substantiated its explanation. But the appellant had filed his explanation on the trading addition which was rejected by the Assessing Officer/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). But such exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... peace with the Income-tax Department would also not prevent levy of penalty for concealment of income as there can be no agreement or estoppel against the statute. We also find that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had considered the claim of the assessee regarding the draft penalty order imposed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the assessee's claim that it was not considered at the appellate stage is incorrect. The order passed by the Assessing Officer is valid and within the time-limit prescribed under section 271(1)(c) for imposition of penalty. We set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and restore the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed."....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ording to the Tribunal it was a case of deemed concealment and even the explanation made by the assessee was not bona fide and it was a result of the Department's detection, that this amount could be made taxable. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the judgment of this court in the case of Electrical Agencies Corporation v. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 619 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99. Reference to the order of the Assessing Officer, at this stage, would be appropriate. It has been noticed by the Income-tax Officer that the assessee was not able to offer any satisfactory explanation for the sum of Rs. 11,99,242.54 in regard to its source. On October 11, 1993 a specific order w....