TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 1265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2004-2005, the appellant filed his return of income on 26.10.2004 admitting a total income of Rs. 9,14,901/- and it was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act. For the assessment year 2005-2006, the appellant filed his return of income on 26.10.2005 admitting a total income of Rs. 10,44,915/- and it was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act. The appellant thereafter filed revised returns of income and the same were regularised by issuance of notices under Section 148 of the Act on 19.03.2008. 3. While so, a survey was conducted by the Department in the case of M/s. Apollo Hospitals Limited, Greams Road, Chennai during February 2006 and the investigation revealed that the hospital had collected fees from patients which were not accounted for in the books of the hospital as the doctors including the appellant were not their employees. During the said proceedings, the hospital clarified that out of the fees given to the Doctor, 10% was retained by them towards provision for infrastructural facilities offered to the Doctors engaged by them specifically. In this connection, the appellant was summoned by the authorities by issuance of summons under Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....way of filing these Tax Case Appeals. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the ITAT has not provided an opportunity of hearing to the appellant; and without assigning proper reasons and justification, the order impugned herein has been passed. Adding further, the learned counsel submitted that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act had no application to the facts of the present cases, since there were no concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially on consideration of the revised returns filed on 15.03.2006 voluntarily, which were acted upon and accepted in the re-assessment proceedings commenced and completed on 22.12.2008. That apart, the regularised returns were filed before detection pursuant to the survey conducted in the hospital and hence, the levy of penalty cannot be justified. However, the ITAT failed to take note of the said facts, while passing the order impugned herein. It is also submitted that regularisation of the revised returns filed on 15.03.2006 on the issuance of notices dated 19.03.2008 under section 148(1) on the assessee would vitiate the action of the Assessing Officer as well as the reasons given to s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in relation thereto. It is further submitted that before issuance of show cause notices, the appellant had filed the returns voluntarily showing additional income and there is no concealment or escapement of income to tax and hence, penalty under section 271(1)(c) inflicted on the appellant, is erroneous and not sustainable in law. 13. But, the fact remains that only after the survey was conducted by the Department in M/s.Apollo Hospitals Limited, Greams Road, Chennai during February 2006 and in the course of further investigation, the appellant filed his revised returns on his own, showing additional income received, and paid tax in relation thereto. However, the assessing officer held that the revised return was not a valid return under section 139(5) and accordingly, levied penalty under section 27(1)(c) of the Act. On appeals, the CIT (Appeals) pointed out in the orders that the assessee had filed revised return voluntarily and all taxes have been paid before the notices were issued by the Department. In this regard, the CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Dr.R.Gopalakrishnan for the assessment year 2005-2006 and del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome than the one he had reported in these assessment years, that he was aware of the fact that he did have a much higher income in those years, and that he had deliberately failed to report that income, the actual income reported being very much less than the income realised. The concealment was thus clear and patent. The filing of the revised returns by the assessee was after he had filed the petition before the CIT, which petition itself came to be filed after the search in his premises, and the statement given by his accountant regarding the concealment of income by the assessee. The mere filing of the revised returns in these circumstances cannot have the effect of exonerating the assessee from the liability for penalties, as the revised return was filed only on the basis that he had concealed his income during the earlier years. The fact that there was a search and that his accountant had given a statement were matters of record and were matters which had been admitted by the assessee himself when he gave a petition to the CIT." (ii) Pr.CIT v. Dr. Vandana Gupta [301 CTR 460 Delhi] "13. In the present case too, the assessee merely made a voluntary surrender, s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot justified in levy penalty, especially when the assessee had no satisfactory explanation as to why he had offered income in the revised return." (iv) Sundaram Finance Ltd v. ACIT [403 ITR 407 (Mad)] "10. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Manjunatha Cotton mills's (supra) after taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, summarized the principles with regard to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It held that penalty under the said Section is a civil liability, mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities, wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability, existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271 and the existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority, the imposition of Penalty is not automatic, imposition of penalty even if the tax liability is admitted is not automatic and if explanation offered is not substantiated, an order imposing penalty c....