TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 709
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer in respect of A.Y. 2015-16. Facts of the Case 2. The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate development, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.03.2016 declaring Nil income. A survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee and its group concerns on 10.01.2012. In the course of survey, the assessee admitted additional undisclosed income of Rs. 2 crores, which was bifurcated between A.Y. 2012-13 (Rs. 1,86,93,306/-) and A.Y. 2015-16 (Rs. 14,00,000/-). Though the assessee paid advance tax of Rs. 4,50,000/- on 25.03.2015 in respect of the sum of Rs. 14,00,000/-, it failed to include the said income in the return of income filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of principles of natural justice, the same is prayed to be set aside. 2. Without prejudice to the Ground No. 1, the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in law and in facts in confirming the order of the Ld. A.O. by passing an ex-parte order without adjudicating the matter on merits of the case. The order so passed is bad in law and is prayed to be set aside. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act, 1961 of Rs. 4,32,600/-. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant firm has disclosed an amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- for A.Y 2015- 16 during the survey proceedin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entical facts penalty was directed to be deleted upon verification of advance tax paid. Accordingly, the AR prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for deletion of the penalty, or in the alternative, for remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the payment of advance tax and consequent adjudication. 7. The learned Senior Departmental Representative relied upon the findings of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) in support of the impugned penalty under section 271(1)(c). 8. We have carefully considered the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), the materials placed on record, and the rival contentions. It is an admitted fact that the assessee disclosed a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- during t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pertinent to note that the survey under section 133A was conducted much earlier-on 10.01.2012-wherein the assessee admitted to unaccounted income of Rs. 14,00,000/- relatable to A.Y. 2015-16. Despite this, the assessee filed its return of income much later, on 30.03.2016, declaring Nil taxable income, without disclosing the admitted sum or claiming the advance tax allegedly paid. Significantly, the assessee did not file a revised return under section 139(5) to rectify the omission, nor did it make any attempt to explain the lapse in a timely or structured manner. More critically, the assessee did not participate at all in the penalty proceedings, despite being issued a specific notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c), dated 18.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kantilal Shah (supra) is misconceived and factually distinguishable. In that case, the assessee had filed a revised return, substantiated the advance tax payment, and actively participated in the penalty proceedings, explaining the omission. The Bench, in those circumstances, remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for factual verification. In the present case, however, the assessee has neither filed a revised return, nor offered any explanation for the omission, nor participated at any stage in the penalty or appellate proceedings. The conduct of the assessee does not reflect a bona fide error, but rather gross neglect or deliberate concealment, squarely attracting the consequences prescribed under section 271(1)(c). 10. As regards ....