TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1539
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Year 2010-11. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1.00 Under the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A), erred in confirming the levy of concealment penalty of Rs. 1,275,802/- on account of Income added during the course of survey as regards difference in Stock valuation. 1.01. The leaned CIT(A) failed to consider the written submission made before him. 1.02 Under the facts and in the law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the particulars as contemplated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.03 The Supreme Court judgment in case of M/s Mak Data Pvt. Ltd v. CIT relied on by CIT(A) is not applicable to the facts of the appellant's case. 1.04 The Learned CIT(A) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee and ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer has wrongly held that assessee furnished inaccurate particular or concealed income. A survey was conducted on 17.03.2010. The return of income for Assessment Year 2010-11 was filed on 12.10.2010. The assessee while filing return of income increased the closing stock by Rs. 40.00 lacks - to Rs. 1,30,28,931/- raising Gross Profit to 14% against the normal Gross Profit on 5%. The return of income was accepted by Assessing Officer qua the closing stock. The assessee has paid additional tax during survey itself and the income was incorporated in the return of income. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er. The Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction whether the additional stock declared by assessee for Rs. 40,01,181/- was disclosed in the return of income or not. There is no satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer, at the time of passing assessment order that assessee furnished any inaccurate particular or concealed any income. The Assessing Officer simply noted while passing the assessment order "penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately for concealing of income". 6. During the penalty proceeding, the assessee filed reply to the show cause vide its reply dated 21.06.2013. In the reply, the assessee contended that they have neither concealed their income nor furnished inaccurate partic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....held that if there is no finding of the Assessing Officer to recall that return were found to be incorrect or erroneous there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). As argued by ld. AR of the assessee that the assessee neither concealed any income nor any inaccurate particular was furnished as there is no addition qua the income offered during the survey action. Further, the Revenue has not disputed the Gross Profit declared by assessee. 7. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 11 taxmann.com 207 (Del.) held that section 271(1)(c) is a penal provision and as such a provision has to be strictly construed. Unless the case false within the four-corners of the said provision of law, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xposed during survey, may be, it would have not disclosed the income but for the said survey. However, there cannot be any penalty only on surmises, conjectures and- possibilities. Section 271(l)(c) of the Act has to be construed strictly. Unless it is found that there is actually a concealment or non-disclosure of the particulars of income, penalty cannot be imposed. There is no such concealment or nondisclosure as the assessee had made a complete disclosure n the incometax return and offered the surrendered amount for the purposes of tax. 8. In view of the above discussion, we found that in absence of any satisfaction recorded by Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order that there was non-disclosure of income offered during....