TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1.0 The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. 2.0 The ld CIT(A)-II, Rajkot [CIT(A)] erred in facts as also in retaining levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on income of Rs. 55,53,360/-. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may kindly be deleted. 3.0 The Honor's appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal." 3. The solitary issue raised by assessee is that ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 55,53,360/-. 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is partnership firm and engaged in the business of Civil Construction. There was a survey u/s 133A of the Act at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....02.2012 for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee in compliance to it submitted its reply dated 07.11.2011 that it has neither concealed the particulars of income nor furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. However, the AO disregarded the contention of the assessee. The AO further observed that the assessee has filed his original return of income declaring income of Rs. 1,46,640/- only. Thus the AO was of the view that the assessee has concealed his income amounting to Rs. 58,03,020/- (Rs. 59,49,660 - Rs. 1,46,640) and accordingly levied the penalty of Rs. 17,93,140/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded for furnishing the particulars of income. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to ld CIT(A). Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....271(1)(c) can be levied or not. The appellant has contended that it had suo moto offered additional income in response to notice u/s.148. Thus, there is no concealment. It has also been contended that the addition was on estimate basis and hence no penalty can be levied. I find no merit in the contention of the appellant. It is an undisputed fact, which has also been accepted by the appellant, that many entries in Annexure-B/27 were not reflected in the regular books of accounts. The income offered by the appellant in response to notice u/s.148 is only after it has been detected by the department and it is not a voluntary act on pail of the appellant. In the case of LMP Precision Enginerring Ltd. vs. DCIT 330 1TR 93, the Hon'ble Gujara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tary when the assessee itself revised the revised return under letter dated 30-3-1990 by disclosing a further sum of Rs. 78 lakhs and odd. It is (rue that mere fact of not challenging the assessment order per se would not be indicative of any acceptance that there was concealment of income, but in (he facts of the present case, the said fact of the assessee not having challenged, any of the assessment orders for the three years under consideration, assumes significance. This fact on its own, as a solitary factor may not be sufficient but read in conjunction with overall conduct of the assessee would definitely be a pointer to the factum of assessee having indulged in an act of concealment of income in the form of unverifiable purchases." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was Rs. 1,46,640/-. The appellant had thus shown additional income of Rs. 55,53,360/-. The A.O. had levied penalty on concealed income of Rs. 58,03,020/-. However, as per the appeal order regarding, the quantum addition, the addition of Rs. 6,39,990/- has been deleted. Thus, the income on which tax sought to be evaded now stands at Rs. 55,53,360/-. The A.O. is directed to recompute the penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded on this amount." Being aggrieved by the order of ld CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The ld AR before us reiterated the submission as made before the ld CIT(A). 7. On the other hand, ld DR before us submitted that the income was offered by the assessee as a result of survey. Thus, it is clear that....