TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 80
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not justified to arbitrarily uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) at Rs. 11,43,300/-." 3. From the aforesaid grounds it would be clear that the only grievance of the assessee relates to the sustenance of penalty of Rs. 11,43,300/- levied by the A.O. under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). 4. During the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the very outset stated that the similar issue having identical facts was involved in the case of Smt Neelu Garg Sister in law of the assessee, the facts are identical in both the cases and the issue has already been adjudicated by the ITAT, Chandigarh 'SMC' Bench in ITA No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent assessee and her Sister in law Smt. Neelu Garg(supra) are similar which is clear from the aforesaid referred to Chart furnished by the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. In the case of Smt. Neelu Garg (supra) it has been held as under: 10. The assessee suomoto surrendered Rs. 37 lacs and filed the revised statement of net assessable income and deposited the due tax on the said surrender on 12.10.2015. The A.O. issued the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on 8.4.2016 and asked the assessee to furnish various details. According to the A.O. the assessee concealed the income to the extent of Rs. 37 lacs. I t is not iced that the assessee furnished various details asked by the A.O. vide letter dated 30.4.2016, copy of which is placed at page ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt pointed out to the assessee that the income amounting to Rs. 37 lacs had escaped assessment . On the contrary, the assessee herself surrendered the amount of Rs. 37 lacs and paid the due taxes & interest on the said surrendered income on 12.10.2015 much before the discrepancy, if any, was pointed out by any of the departmental authorities. On a similar issue, the Hon'ble Jurisdiction; High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raj iv Garg (2009) 313 ITR 256 (supra) held as under: " that the Tribunal had recorded a pure finding of fact to the effect that the Revenue had not placed on record any material or evidence to discharge its burden of proving concealment . No such finding was recorded in the assessment order . The Tribunal furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome and in the absence of any documents being produced the said persons offered to disclose income/s subject to no penalty. The Hon'ble High Court held that in such circumstances it could not be held that the assessee had (sic - not) concealed its income and the assessee was held to be liable to levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c ) of the Act." 12. In the present case also, the assessee suo moto surrendered an amount of Rs. 37 lacs and paid the due tax alongwith interest thereon much before the Investigation Wing or the A.O. pointed out any discrepancy about the undisclosed or concealed income of the assessee. I , therefore, considering the facts of the present case am of the view that the impugned penalty levied by the A.O. u....