TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 837
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2010-11. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is engaged in the business of Ship Breaking. There was a survey action u/s. 133A of the Act in the business premises of the assessee and search action u/s. 132 of the Act in the residential premises of the Director of the assessee company on 12.01.2010. 2.1. During the course of search, the Director of the assessee company declared an income of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee company and Rs. 20,00,000/- in his individual capacity. Thus the assessee company filed its Return of Income on 07.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 3,27,20,120/- which is inclusive of declared income of Rs. 1,80,00,000/-. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO had simply levied the penalty on the basis of amount confirmed by the CIT(A) i.e. Rs.1,84,08,097/-. It is also seen that the AO had levied penalty on the confirmed addition of Rs.4,08,0971- as well as disclosed income of Rs.1,80,00,000/- during the course of survey u/s.133A of the Act and subsequently declared in the return of income filed u/s.139(1) of the Act. In fact in the assessment proceeding at Para 5, the AO had determined the suppression of sales figure of Rs.1,46,64,689 only. But the AO did not make any addition on account of suppression of sales because the appellant had already disclosed a sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/- which was much higher than the amount determined by the AO herself. Further, I find that the AO during the penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Jurisdictional ITAT, Ahmedabad- B Bench in case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jupiter Distillery [2012] 23 taxmann.com 303 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) has held as under that:- "The assessee had surrendered a sum of Rs. 1.6 crores during the course of survey/search and seizure operation. While furnishing its return of income, the assessee had declared its income including the amount so surrendered. However, while framing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the premise that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars by suppressing and under-reporting the investment in bank accounts and on account of income deemed to have accrued to it. Held that the assessee on its own, r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a complete disclosure in return of income and offered surrendered amount for purposes of tax, which was accepted and brought to tax, there could be no question of treating assessee as having concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Held, yes -Whether, therefore, there was no justification for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on income of Rs. 81 lakhs Held, yes [Paras 7, 10 12] (In favour of assessee/IT: Where assessee consequent to survey conducted under section 133A had declared income from business at Rs. 81 lakhs and further in return of income filed also declared said income, which was accepted and brought to tax, Assessing Officer was wrong in imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c),"....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it is seen that the assessee had not recorded mentioned any amount in it's books of accounts and subsequently made adhoc disclosure in the return of income, which tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent. 4.1. The Ld. Sr. D.R. Shri Atul Pandey appearing for the Revenue supported the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer and requested to uphold the same. 5. Per contra, the Ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was admitted during the course of survey. Thus it cannot be said that the assessee had furnished "inaccurate particulars of income" which is not disputed by the Assessing Officer. 6.1. Further as per Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c), penalty is not leviable since the assessee has paid the taxes thereon in the Return of Income filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. This view of our is supported by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Jupiter Distillery [2012] 23 taxmann.com 303 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) and in the case of Muninaga Reddy vs. ACIT [2013] 37 taxmann.com 440 (Bangalore - Trib.) wherein deleted the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6.2. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. S....