TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 796
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) are attracted when the assessee had voluntarily offered the income in good faith for taxation ?" 3. We have heard Mr.Venkata Narayanan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and both the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue. 4. The short issue, which falls for consideration in the instant case, is as to whether the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The assessee filed the return of income for the said assessment year and the return was processed under Section 143(3) of the Act. While examining the return ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....expenditure. Accordingly, the same was added to the income. 9. However, it is to be seen as to whether this could be a reason for levying of penalty. The assessee, in their reply to the show cause notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, contended that it was not a deliberate attempt or intentional attempt to conceal and that the omission was only by oversight. 10. The CIT (A) took note of the said stand taken by the assessee and the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Badri Prasad Om Prakash [reported in 163 ITR 440] and held that when a query is raised by the Assessing Officer and after the query is raised, the assessee accepts the same, it should be termed as a wilful omission. 11. Before the First Appellate Authority, the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed return. However, this was not established by the assessee. Therefore, the decision in Sri Saradha Textile Processors (P) Ltd., cannot be applied to the case of the assessee herein. 14. With regard to the decision in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [reported in (2012) 348 ITR 0306], relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, the legal principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that imposition of penalty would be unwarranted in a case where the assessee had committed an inadvertent and bona fide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars. The legal principle, as laid down in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in financial services such as leasing and hire purchase finance and it is beyond one's apprehension that in their returns, they inadvertently included the sum incurred for land up-keep expenses and debited to the profit and loss account. 17. Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue have placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd. Vs. CIT [reported in (2013) 358 ITR 0593] wherein it has been held that voluntary disclosure/ surrender made in view of the deduction by the Assessing Officer in the search conducted does not release the assessee from the mischief of penalty proceedings. 18. Reliance is also placed by the learned Senior Standing....