AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short]. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee M/s. IRIS Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd., has not filed any return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 within the period allowed under section 139(1) or under section 139(4) of the Act. Based on specific information, a survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted in the business premise of the assessee. During the course of survey proceedings and materials impounded, it transpired that the assessee had sold its immovable property to M/s. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs..8.52 crores. Based on the findings of the survey and the materials unearthed during the proceedings, not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee filed a letter dated 18.08.2016, wherein, it was stated as under: "(a) The company was a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s. Ravilla Aerospace Industries P. Ltd. And are having some factory land and buildings and condemned machinery unfit for usage, situated inside the Coimbatore city corporation limits and the company was a totally defunct company with operation or activities and no serving employees. (b) The assessee company sold the unutilized factory land and building to M/s. LMW Ltd. A widely held, publicly trading BSE listed company during the year 2011-12. All the transactions were accounted in the books of accounts of the assessee company and only the books of account....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eived the notice u/s. 148 which got the assessee one more opportunity to amend the mistake and file the return of income. (f) The company fully co-operated with the department in all manner and furnished all the required documents, statements, records and confirmations. In the process all details given by the company was accepted by the department and the return of income was accepted as such without any addition by the department and hence it is purely a technical error for non filing of return and the company has not as such concealed any income any manner." 2.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee and facts of the case, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee had disclosed the income only after the survey was co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ligation to furnish a return of income as required under Section 139 disclosing such income. However, I find no such return was filed by the assessee under section 139 disclosing the capital gains liable to tax. It was only when the notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee subsequent to the Survey u/s 133A carried out in this case, the assessee filed a return of income disclosing the capital gains as late as on 29.10.2015. One of the arguments of the assessee is that the income declared ill the return by the company has been accepted by the Department without any addition and there is no case for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, I observe that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rts viz. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's decision in the case of CIT V Prasanna Dugar [2015] 371 ITR 19 (followed by dismissal of SLP by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at 373 ITR 681, Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in the case of CIT Vs Usha International Ltd 254 CTR 509, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of Rajesh Chawla Vs CIT 154 Taxman 364 and Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of R. Padmanabhan 371 ITR 211. 8. The facts of the case laws quoted by the assessee are not relevant to the assessee's case. In the case of E. Krishnappa quoted by the assessee, the facts are different that the assessee has filed a belated return and to regularize the return filed by the assessee a notice u/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on that the assessment itself was held to be invalid for the reason that the order passed by the Assessing Officer to a non-existing company. Therefore, the penalty proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below. 6. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, the assessee filed its return of income on 29.10.2015 after survey was conducted and by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act dated 20.01.2015 and after issue of notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 05.06.2015 and dated 20.07.2015. In the return of income, the assessee has disclosed the long term capital g....