2021 (6) TMI 805

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from truck plying. He filed his return of income on 31st March, 2015 declaring the total income at Rs. 38,08,660/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 11.11.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 42,75,320/- wherein he made an addition of Rs. 4,66,660/- on account of additional income from short-term capital gain offered by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The AO, thereafter initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the AO held that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and has furnished inaccurate particulars of inc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Accountant. He submitted that merely because the addition has been sustained by the AO it does not make the assessee liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the assessee can always make new plea. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PricewaterhouseCoopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 348 ITR 306 (SC), he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deleted the penalty on account of bona fide mistake committed. He accordingly submitted that on merit the penalty is not leviable. 6. In his second plank of argument, the ld. counsel, referring to the copy of the notice issued by the AO, submitted that the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not spec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sment proceedings had surrendered an income of Rs. 4,66,666/- for the computation of short-term capital gain which amount was received by him on 13th December, 2011 by cheque and which relates to A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee had paid tax on the above amount. It is further to be noted that the assessee had surrendered the above income before it was detected by the Department although only statutory notices had been issued. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PricewaterhouseCoopers, reported in 348 ITR 306, while deleting the penalty upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court at para 19 of the order has observed as under:- "19. The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assessee concealing its inc....