TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 1085
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act'), vide order dated 16.04.2019. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in levying penalty of Rs. 17,253/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act,1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that penalty levied by the assessing officer and confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 3. Brief facts of the issue in dispute are stated as under. Assessee before us is an individual and did not file return of income for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee`s c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....carried the matter in appeal before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard both the parties. The only issue here is relating to penalty imposed amounting to Rs. 17,253/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has furnished the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 for AY 2013-14 on 23.04.2018, declaring total income of Rs. 3,67,500/. The assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, on 09.12.2018 determining the total income of Rs. 3,67,500/- accepting the income declared in assessee's return of income filed u/s 148 of the Act. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated on the income which was disclose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herein the co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi held that Assessing Officer had simply accepted the returned income u/s 148 of the Act. Hence, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) will not be imposable. The ld Counsel also relied on the judgment of Hon`ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 963 (SC). 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer and submitted that Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty because assessee did not file return of income. Had the assessee's case not been re-opened by the Department u/s 147 of the Act the assessee would not have paid the tax on the income concealed by him. Therefore, penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer should b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... particulars of such income. He had simply accepted the returned income u/s 148 of the Act. Hence, assessee's case is covered by the decisions referred to above and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) will not be imposable. 9. We also note that the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi, in the case of Meeta Gutgutia (supra), on the same identical facts, deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Act, observing as follows: "6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that the returned income has been accepted, there is no satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer that assessee had concealed income with reference to return of income filed by him in response to notice u/s 148. Hon'ble Supreme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 963 (SC) the assessee filed revised returns showing higher income after search and notice for reopening of assessment, to purchase peace and avoid litigation and Department simply rested its conclusion on the act of voluntary surrender done by the assessee in good faith, High Court was justified in holding that no penalty could be levied. The assessee's case is on more strong footing as that of Suresh Chand Mittal (supra) decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court. As held in earlier paragraphs there should be variation in assessed and returned income and such variation should be as a result of concealment. It is not the case of assessing officer that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been imposed on certain additions made to the re....