TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 94
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evenue Department on 20^th May, 2005 which was duly served upon the assessee on 24^th May, 2005. The assessee filed a revised return under section 153A showing income of Rs.27,04,280/- while in the revised return of income tax it has been shown as Rs.3,00,278/-. Hence the order was passed assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.30,04,280/-. Therefore, for such addition of Rs.27,04,000/- as undisclosed income the notice under section 271(1)(C) was issued and served on the assessee. 3. After considering the facts it appears that the ACIT held as follows: "The assessee had in fact concealed the income by not showing the undisclosed income so disclosed after search, in his regular return filed U/s.139(1). It is also important to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inding regarding concealment of income, levy of penalty was not justified. (CIT v. Suresh Kumar Bansal - 254 ITR 130). The judicial authorities cited here were further discussed in the context of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Diip N. Shroff v. JCIT (291 ITR 519). The Authorised Representative of the appellant rightly pointed out that penalty would be leviable if the assessee conceals particulars of his income or furnishes inaccurate particulars thereof. But by reason of such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars alone, the assessee does not ipso facto become liable for penalty. Imposition of penalty is not automatic 'not only is the levy of penalty discretionary in nature but the discretion is also required to be e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f lottery tickets. The Assessing Officer in that case found the verification of expenses on advertisements and expenses on unsold ticket as impossible and held that the income had to be necessarily estimated. A similar approach is adopted by Punjab & Haryana High Court in a number of cases (Harigopal Singh v. CIT -258 ITR 85; CIT v. Suresh Kumar Bansal - 254 ITR 130; CIT v. Ravail Singh & Co -254 ITR 17). The reason for this is that the burden is on the Assessing Officer to specially point out the amount of income concealed by the appellant and to further prove that the appellant had no explanation about the sources of such income and if the explanation is offered, it is found to be false. This would require investigation at various points ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow is based on document RK/6, the contents of which are nowhere discussed. It appears to be an inference drawn on grounds of probability or a case of deemed income. The expenditure or the outflow of cash would remain unexplained if explanation with reference to contents of RK/6 was directed to be furnished. No such attempt is on record. Therefore, the offer of Rs.24,04,000/- as unexplained outflow is the offer for tax in a spirit of settlement. In assessment year 2000-01 the major portion of the estimated income is similar in nature as in assessment year 1999-2000, apart from IVP investment. In neither case is there any attempt to obtain the explanation of the appellant. Document RK/6 is mentioned but its contents are not discussed. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oversy I have owned up the same (seized document BLP/7 and BLP/8) stating that the same may be treated as my unrecorded trading transaction.' That such income belonged to the appellant is a conclusion based on the offer of the appellant and not entirely on the seized documents. As far as the jewelry found at the time of search is concerned, it was found with three persons and the gross of weight jewellery found was less than the gross weight of jewellery declared by 15 wealth tax assesses in the family. Therefore, the jewellery found was less than the jewellery disclosed in terms of quantity. The disclosure of Rs.19,21,927/- in respect of jewellery is only on account of mismatch between the description of jewellery in the wealth tax record ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns or may also be properly explained with sufficient effort or where no offer need be made, additional income is offered, there is an estimate of undisclosed income considered necessary for the purpose of avoiding uncertainties. Therefore, levy of penalty on such offer is not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and their explanation which compelled the offer of additional income. Accordingly, the order of penalty is cancelled and the appeal is allowed." 7. By this order the appeal was allowed and penalty was set aside. 8. Being aggrieved the department filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considering the decision of the CIT (Appeals) uphold the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals )....