TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 827
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led his return of income for the A.Y. 2004-05 on 25/10/2004, declaring total income of Rs. 6,31,020/-. A search and seizure operation was conducted on 20/08/2009 in the residential premises of the assessee, who is the Managing Director of M/s. SCL Infratech Ltd., Consequent to the search and seizure operations, notice u/s.153A dt.28/4/2010 was issued to the assessee. In response to this notice, the assessee of Rs. 9,71,014/- including additional income of Rs. 3,40,020/-. The assessment u/s.143 (3) r.w.s. 153A was completed on 27.12.2011, determining taxable income at Rs. 9,71,020/-. 2.1 During the search operations, certain loose sheets were seized from the residence of the assessee, vide Annexure A/DVN/0l to A/DVN/12. It was found from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is regular books of account and accordingly, not debited from his capital account. The addition was made on the basis of evidence in the seized material. Further, the assessee himself admitted the same as unexplained expenditure in his statement given u/s.132(4). But for the search, these issues would have not seen the light. Further, this is deemed concealment within the meaning of explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act. It is to be further noted that there is no reasonable cause which has prevented assessee from disclosing these transactions to the department voluntarily when the original return was filed. There is a deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to conceal his income and thereby furnished inaccurate particula....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he other hand, the ld. DR besides relying on the orders of revenue authorities, submitted that there was nothing voluntary about the admission made by the assessee as none of it would have materialized, but, for the search carried out. He, therefore, justified the penalty. He relied on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Sanjay Enterprises (P) ltd. Vs. ITO, [2012] 17 Taxmann.com 94 (Delhi). 9. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. During the course of search, the AO found that some of the payments made to the trust were not routed through books of account of assessee. When questioned, the assessee admitted a sum of Rs. 3,40,000/- as unexplained expenditure and the AO assessed the income of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idered as return filed under s. 139 of the Act, as the AO has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied on the income assessed over and above the income returned under s. 153A, if any." 21. Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed under Section 139 of the Act. For all purposes, including for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section 153A. In fact, the second proviso to Section 153A(1) pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& 153C excludes the application of, inter alia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed under Section 153A & 153C takes the place of the original return under Section 139, for the purposes of all other provisions of the act and accordingly, if the same has been accepted as such by the revenue, the penalty was not justified in view of the fact that return filed pursuant to Section 153C has to be looked at as a second chance to assessee to make good omission, if any, in the original return. Once AO accepts the revised return filed under Section 153C, the original return filed u/s 139 abates and become non-est. Further, it is trite to say that "concealment" has to be seen with reference to the return that it is filed by the asse....