AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lance sheet of the assessee. Under these circumstances the A.O re-opened the assessment by issuing a notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. In response to the notice assessee filed revised return on 25-02-2005 declaring total income of Rs. 12,07,352/-. In other words, the assessee admitted additional income of Rs. 5,50,000/- only as against Rs. 10,49,150/- which was not reflected in the balance sheet. The A.O therefore, added total cash deposits of Rs. 10,49,150/- and completed the assessment. The ITAT, however set aside the case to work out the peak credit. As per the direction of the Tribunal A.O completed the assessment as per the revised return filed by the assessee. In other words, additional income of Rs. 5,50,000/- offered by assessee, in response to a notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act, was accepted. 3. According to A.O the amount deposited in the bank account was not even reflected in the balance sheet and additional income was offered to tax only in the revised return, after the A.O noticed the deposits in the bank account. Thus, the AO had arrived at a prima facie view that it was a case of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... circumstances of the case, I levy a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 5. Before the Ld CIT (A) it was contended that there is no basis for the Assessing Officer to arrive at the concealed income as the Hon'ble ITAT directed AO to verify the peak credit. It was also contended that levy of penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs is excessive. 6. Ld CIT (A) observed that in the light of the following decisions the revised return filed by the assessee, after issuance of notice u/s 148, cannot be said to be voluntary. (1) CIT vs. Usha International Ltd., (2012) 254 CTR (Delhi) 509; (2) CIT vs. Rakesh Suri (2010) 230 CTR (All) 184 and (3) P. RajaSwamy Raja Jewellry vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 527 (Ker.). 7. Ld CIT (A) further observed that the revised return was filed only after cash deposits were detected by the Department and thus it is a clear-cut case of concealment of income. However, keeping in view the nature of business of the assessee the penalty leviable was restricted to Rs. 1,40,000/-. 8. Further aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Though the assessee challenged the levy of penalty on merits, at the time of filing the appeal, in the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... High Court (supra) to submit that it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to specify as to whether the penalty proceedings are initiated on account of "concealment" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income" as otherwise the proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed. The judgment also states that the person who is "accused" of the conditions mentioned in section 271 should be made aware of the grounds on which imposition of penalty is proposed as he has a right to contest such proceedings. The Hon'ble Court also recognised the fact that some cases may attract both the offences and in some there may be overlapping of both, but in such cases initiation must be specifically for both the offences. It was further observed that concealment of income is an act of omission while furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is an act of commission. The consequences of such acts, being penal in nature, an assessee has to be informed as to what exactly is the charge i.e., the precise allegation against the assessee should be informed. Ld Counsel referred to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer to submit that the Assessing Officer has not specified as to whether the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on account of the fact that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income which resulted in concealment of income. He relied upon the following judgments wherein the Courts have held that even if an additional income is offered in response to a notice u/s 148, it cannot be said to be voluntary if it is noticed that the additional income was offered consequent to the detection of income by the Assessing Authority. (1) 323 ITR 527 (Kerala) in the case of P. Rajaswamy, Raja Jewellery vs. CIT; (2) 243 ITR 818 (Kerala) in the case of P.C. Joseph & Bros. vs. CIT and (3) 331 ITR 458 (Allahabad) in the case of CIT vs. Rakesh Suri. 14. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused record. With regard to the first contention of the assessee, that the additional income having been offered in the revised return, penalty provisions are not attracted, the fact remains that the Income Tax Act provides for filing of revised return within the time provided u/s 139(5) of the Act. Even if it is not filed within the specified time, there may be some exceptional cases where the assessee declares additional income voluntarily before it is brought to his notice by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n both counts and even penalty order details the nature of default on the part of the assessee, followed by a specific conclusion that the assessee has concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Under these circumstances, it cannot be assumed that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of responding to the notice by virtue of not striking off the word "or" in the penalty notice. 18. Assessee, in his reply, responded to both the accusations which also proves that there was no confusion in the mind of the assessee as to the reasons for initiating penalty proceedings, either before the first appellate authority or before the second appellate authority; In the original grounds of appeal the assessee has not raised this objection which also proves that the objection was not on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice on the part of the Assessing Officer. 19. It is well settled that the observations of the Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute, and that too taken out of their context. In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta vs. M/s. Alnoori Tobacco Products and Anr. (2004) [6 SCC 1....