TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 946
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the concealed income of Rs. 2,87,921 under s. 271(l)(c) of the Act. (3) The appellant reserves the right to add to the above grounds of appeal and/or to amend, modify and to delete any of them on or before the hearing of appeal." 2. From the above grounds it is clear that only grievance of the assessee relates to the confirmation of the penalty levied by the AO under s. 271(l)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The facts of the case in brief are that a search operation under s. 132 of the Act was conducted at the business and residential premises of the assessee on 11th Dec., 2003. During the course of search various incriminating documents were seized which included loose paper No. 14 of Annex. A2 pertaining to unrecorded sales of marble slabs/tiles of Rs. 2,62,300. This amount was declared in the revised return of income filed by the assessee on 24th March, 2006. The assessment was completed under s. 153C r/w s. 153A/143(3) of the Act on 27th March, 2006 wherein additions of Rs. 79,192 and Rs. 18,712 were made on account of unaccounted and understated sales respectively on the basis of the seized documents. These additions were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were found and seized during the course of search operation clearly indicated that the assessee had made unaccounted sales of Rs. 2,62,300 and had also made unrecorded sales of Rs. 97, 192, understated sale of Rs. 18,712. He further observed that Rs. 2,62,300 was claimed to be offered for taxation in the statement of Shri Yashwant Chordia recorded on 25th Feb., 2004 and that the said amount was declared in the revised return filed on 24th March, 2006. According to the learned CIT(A) the above disclosure of additional income was not voluntary because it was made only after evidence was found during the search operation and had there been no search in the assessee's case those sales would never have been shown. Therefore, it was only after detection of concealment as a result of search operation that the assessee came forward to disclose additional income of Rs. 2,62,300. The learned CIT(A) further observed that statement of Shri Yashwant Chordia was recorded under s. 131 of the Act on 25th Feb., 2004 in the post-search investigation and no statement was recorded under s. 132(4) of the Act during the search. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to immunity under the exceptio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case it is an admitted fact that an income of Rs. 2,62,300 was offered by the assessee for taxation in the revised return which has been accepted by the Department in its entirety without detailed discussion for the seized documents. Therefore, the penalty under s. 271(l)(c) of the Act on the said amount of Rs. 2,62,300 was not leviable. On a similar issue the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Suresh Chand Bansal (supra) has held as under (headnote) : "The assessee filed a return in response to notice under s. 153A of the IT Act, 1961 offering additional income for asst. yrs. 1999-2000 to 2005-06. On the basis of the addition as undisclosed income an order levying penalty under s. 271(l)(c) was passed. On appeal, the CIT(A) set aside the penalty holding that the assessee offered additional income for asst. yrs. 1999-2000 to 2005-06 and it was held to be a good offer, that it was accepted in its entirety, that the factual context must be cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was nothing on record to show that the assessee was given an assurance that no penalty was levied, the facts clearly suggested that such an inducement must have been given by the searching party; that when only partial evidence in support of concealment for a very limited period was detected there was no reason why any person would go to offer much higher amounts for a large number of years; that in view of the deposition given under s. 132(4) followed by the co-operating attitude of the assessee in paying the tax no penalty would be leviable under s. 271(l)(c); that the incriminating materials found during the search were not used by the Departmental authorities in making the assessments; and the revised returns should, therefore, be considered to have been filed in good faith. The Tribunal referred to the High Court the question whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in cancelling the penalty under s. 271(l)(c). The High Court answered the reference in favour of the Department." The Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Hon'ble High Court and held that: "the ....