TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 779
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeals except the quantum of penalty. The ground raised for the assessment year 2006-07 are reproduced as under :- " 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty amounting to Rs. 1,63,770/- imposed by ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said penalty of Rs. 1,63,770/-. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by ld. AO without specifically pointing out whether the penalty was proposed on concealment of particulars of in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee filed its return of income on 13th March 2014 and offered the undisclosed income surrendered during the post search enquiry for these three years. The AO while completing the assessment under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act has accepted the returned income wherein the assessee offered the undisclosed income total amounting to Rs. 11,43,000/- for these three assessment years. The AO initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and levied the penalty vide order dated 18th September, 2014 as under :- Assessment Year Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) 2006-07 1,63,770/- 2007-08 1,43,210/- 2008-09 44,810/- Total 3,51,790/- Aggrieved by the action of the AO, the assessee filed the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... invested in real estate. The ld. A/R has contended that under this bonafide belief the assessee did not file the return of income on the capital gain earned on the transaction of real estate. He has further submitted that the Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) can be invoked only when there is a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC) and submitted that if the assessee has committed an error due to bonafide belief then the penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. He has also relied upon the decision in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Produc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute for these three assessment years that the assessee did not file return of income under section 139(1) of the Act and even till the date of search and seizure action under section 132 on 28th February, 2011. Only after the department detected undisclosed income based on the incriminating material found during the course of search, the assessee admitted undisclosed income and surrendered the same to tax. Thus the question of bonafide belief or inadvertent mistake does not arise in the case of the assessee when the assessee has even not filed the return of income for any of the assessment years under consideration. Further, the explanation of the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income irrespective of the fact that the assessee has declared in the return of income after search. Therefore, all the conditions as stipulated under Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) are satisfied in the case of the assessee and consequently the said Explanation is applicable in respect of the income which was disclosed only after search and seizure action and based on seized material. The ld. CIT (A) has considered this issue in para 5 of the impugned order as under :- " 5. I have perused the order of AO and common submissions made by the Authorized Representative. The appellant has not filed his regular return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The appellant disclosed additional income on account o....