TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 914
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). 3. The facts leading to the imposition of penalty is that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of transport and cargo mover. During the financial year 2012-13, a survey u/s.133A of the Act was carried out in the case. During the course of survey some incriminating documents were found suggesting some illegal payments to RTO Officers, Border Toll Officers etc. When confronted on this issue during the course of survey, Partner of the Firm agreed for the disallowance of such expenditure and accordingly, the assessee firm offered an income of Rs. 19,05,861/- for the year under cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er as per detailed reasoning in his order which is on record. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the original return was filed on 22.09.2009 and though therein illegal expenditures which are inadmissible expenditures have been claimed as deductions but thereafter, in the revised return filed on 29.11.2012 all those inadmissible expenditures of Rs. 19,05,861/- were included and taxes paid accordingly. These facts have been accepted by the Ld. DR also. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that there has been no concealment of income since all the particulars of income as well as inadmissible expenditures were disclosed in the revised return and included in the income and taxes paid acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the original return filed, the benefit would have been taken by the assessee. That since in the original return of income, these were not disclosed it amounts to concealment of income. 7. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. We have also analyzed the facts and circumstances in this case while considering the judicial pronouncements placed before us. In this case when the original return was filed by the assessee u/s.139(1) of the Act, he had inappropriately claimed deductions on certain inadmissible expenditures and this fact came to the notice of the Revenue Authorities at the time of conducting survey u/s.133A of the Act. That thereafter, the assessee had filed revised return in which he has disclosed as i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for levying penalty. 9. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Bhimji Bhanjee & Co. (supra.) has held that "when the assessee has nowhere admitted that it had concealed its income, no penalties are leviable." 10. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dilip Yeshwant Oak Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (supra.), the facts were that the Assessee had filed return of income declaring certain income and thereafter, survey action was undertaken u/s.133A of the Act wherein certain discrepancies were unearthed. To cover up the same, assessee disclosed an additional income and accordingly filed a revised return of income. The Assessing Officer accepted income returned in revised ret....