AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 345
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....false ceiling. The A.O. on perusal of the details submitted by the assessee observed that assessee has not deducted TDS on professional charges paid amounting to Rs. 70,600/-. The assessee was show caused as to why the same should not be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee offered the amount for taxation. The A.O, therefore, noted that since no TDS have been deducted, the same amount is not allowable deduction. The addition was accordingly made. 3. The A.O. further noted that during the year under consideration bank account filed by the assessee shows that there are numbers of cash deposits entries are appearing in Bank account of the assessee. The assessee was asked to file details of cash deposits comin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the three sundry creditors namely (1) ART N Glass Inc., (2) Critianbas Masi and (3) Syali in a sum of Rs. 1,33,897/-. Assessee did not provide any details to the query of the A.O. and ultimately, surrendered the amount of Rs. 1,33,897/-. The A.O. treated the same as unexplained credit under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and made the addition. 6. Thus, on all four issues, the A.O. made total addition of Rs. 17,53,697/-. The A.O. initiated the penalty proceedings for concealing the income. The A.O. vide separate Order, initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee, in response to the show cause notice submitted that assessee has surrendered and agreed for the above additions at the assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that assessee surrendered the amount in question to buy peace of mind and to avoid further litigation. Therefore, penalty is not leviable in the matter. He has relied upon the following decisions : (i) Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2000] 241 ITR 124 (MP). (ii) Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Punjab Rice Mills vs. CIT, Bareilly [2011] 16 taxmann.com 284 (All.) (iii) Judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT, Chennai vs. Smt. Anita Kumaran, Chennai in Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.139 to 141 of 2017, Dated 01.03.2017 (iv) Order of ITAT, Delhi E-Bench in the case of Shri Nikunj Jain,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come. The assessee provided incorrect facts which were marshaled by the A.O. It would show that assessee's disclosure was not voluntary but under compulsion when cornered by the A.O. at the assessment stage. The assessee did not offer any explanation on any of the above issues either at the assessment stage or at the penalty proceedings. Thus, Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is clearly attracted. Had the case would not have been selected for scrutiny assessment, the assessee would not have surrendered the amount in question for the purpose of taxation. The assessee, therefore, had guilty mind and show that assessee concealed the particulars of income from the Revenue Department which invited penalty proceedings under sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shing of inaccurate particulars, but on the basis thereof the claim which is made is ex facie bogus, it may still attract penalty provision." 10.2. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Rajinder Mohan Lal vs. Pr. CIT [2017] 399 ITR 223 (P&H) held that "when assessee failed to prove genuineness of the gifts and identity and creditworthiness of the donors and explanation offered by assessee was not substantiated through any evidence or material on record, would amount to concealment of income. Penalty to be imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act." 10.3. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Basant Singh, Prop. Basant General Store vs. CIT [2017] 399 ITR 247 (P&H) held that "when addition was made t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The surrender of income in this case was not voluntary in the sense that the offer of surrender was made in view of detection by the Assessing Officer in the search conducted in the sister concern of the assessee. The survey was conducted more than 10 months before the assessee filed its return of income. Had it been the intention of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of its income, it would have filed the return declaring an income inclusive of the amount which was surrendered later during the course of the assessment proceedings. Consequently, it was clear that the assessee had no intention to declare its true income. It is the statutory duty of the assessee to record all its trans....