AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1440
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able to be deleted. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeal) have erred in confirming the penalty imposed on the basis of estimated addition in the Assessment Order. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) have ignored the written submissions of the appellant that there was a reasonable cause and the case of the appellant was on similar facts as accepted in the earlier year. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a trader of Iron & Steel Goods. For the impugned AY the assessee filed his return of income on 13-11-07, declaring loss of Rs. 5,37,150/-. During assessment proceedings, the A.O observed that in the preceding year, i.e AY 2006-07, during assessment proceeding, an inspector was deputed to make local inquiries about the assessee and report therea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....3 I have gone through the assessment order passed by the A.O. In a number of cases, it is held that no agreement is possible for non levy of penalty. In the case of CIT vs. Lalchand Tirath Rsm 225 ITR 675 (P&H), it is held that mere offering of explanation is not enough but explanation to be substantiated by cogent and reliable evidence. In this case, the appellant has not submitted details of loss claim. Further, Mens-Rea is not essential for civil liability of penalty (UOI v. Dharmendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277 (SC). Looking into the entirety of the facts, I am of the opinion that penalty is rightly levied in this case." 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assesse has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Before me, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fact was based on the report of the inspector deputed to make enquiries regarding the assessee during assessment proceeding for AY 2006-07. Under such difficult circumstances the assessee had expressed inability to furnish any detail/ information during assessment proceedings and as a consequence surrendered the loss which he had returned in his return of income, both for the AY 2006-07 and the impugned Assessment year. Apparently the assessee had surrendered his losses to buy peace in view of the impossibility faced by him in furnishing adequate details during assessment proceeding and substantiate his claim of loss. The reason given by the assessee for making the alleged surrender appears to be plausible and reasonable from a common mans ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee has made an agreement for no penalty, and at the same time given an explanation for the same which is duly substantiated by the Report of the Inspector of the Department itself. Therefore even by the admission / standards of the CIT(A) also, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Careers Education & Infotech (P.) Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 257/20 taxmann.com 448 (Punj. & Har.) has held as under: " No doubt even voluntary surrender of concealed income may not exonerate the assessee of its liability to pay penalty if it can be held that there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In the present case, the Tribunal has recorded a categorical f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... presumption of concealment, when a difference is noticed by the Assessing Officer between the reported and assessed income. The burden is then on the assessee to show otherwise, by cogent and reliable evidence and when the initial onus placed by the explanation, has been discharged by the assessee, the onus shifts on the Revenue to show that the amount in question constituted their income and not otherwise. Factually, we find that the onus cast upon the assessee has been discharged by giving a cogent and reliable explanation. Therefore, if the department did not agree with the explanation, then the onus was on the department to prove that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the ....