TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 (in short 'the Act'). The Revenue has filed appeals for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 wherein the CIT(Appeals) deleted the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, we heard both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue together and disposing of the same by this common order. 2. Let's first take assessee's appeal in I.T.A. No. 1822/Chny/2016. 3. Shri M. Sri Lisha Stebila Theras, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in bullion and jewellery. According to the Ld. counsel, there was a survey in the premises of the assessee under Section 133A of the Act on 12.08.2010. During the year under consideration, the assessee borrowe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The assessee paid interest for the unsecured loan borrowed from the close relatives. In respect of the loan borrowed from third parties, the assessee paid interest at the rate of 12%. There was no reason for paying higher rate of interest to the close relatives. The contention of the assessee is that the interest charged by the bank at the relevant point of time was 17.25% and after considering the expenses and other charges levied by the bank, the rate of interest comes to 21%. This may be relevant in case the assessee has not borrowed loan from third parties. When the loan was availed from third parties at the rate of 12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. 8. On the contrary, Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that during the course of survey operation under Section 133A of the Act, a statement of cash payment was found on account of transaction in the shares of 21st Century Finance. The statement indicates the transaction of Rs. 52.5 lakhs in cash. After detection of this transaction during the course of survey operation, according to the Ld. D.R., the assessee declared Rs. 5.5 lakhs as undisclosed income in the revised return filed on 27.08.2010. Had the Department not detected the sale and purchase of shares, according to the Ld. D.R., the assessee would not have disclosed the same. Therefore, the additional ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the second revised return on 29.10.2010, the assessee again excluded the same on the ground that it was exempted under Section 10(38) of the Act. Therefore, there was a confusion in the mind of the assessee whether the profit earned on the transaction on sale has to be offered or not. This confusion is because of interpretation of provisions of Income-tax Act. The assessee bonafidely believed that the profit on sale of shares is exempted from taxation. Even if there was omission, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that such an omission cannot be construed as concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of such income. In view of the judgment of Apex Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306, it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted by the Assessing Officer without any further addition. According to the Ld. counsel, the return was filed within the time limit prescribed under the provisions of Income-tax Act even though it was filed after the survey. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, there cannot be any penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, hence, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the penalty. 14. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. No doubt, the Department found some unaccounted stock during the course of survey operation. But, the fact remains that the assessee has disclosed the same in the original return filed subsequent to the survey, within the prescribed time under t....