TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1661
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. (a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty without appreciating that the Appellant had neither concealed its income deliberately nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of its income and further erred in not appreciating that where upon a claim, the appellant had declared to cover discrepancies and to not to impose any penalty, it does not become a case for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) as Revenue had accepted the same, therefore, the levy of penalty is not justified and the same may be deleted. (b) Without prejudice to above, as penalty proceeding and quantum proceeding are distinct and separate and since the disallowance/addition per se does not necessarily justify....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and for concealment of income. 6. Ld. AR specifically argued that since during the initial proceedings, the assessee had made voluntarily declaration, thereby declaring Rs. 70 lakhs as additional income only on the condition that no penalty be levied and the said amount was disclosed just to buy peace. It was father submitted in the circumstances when once the statement of additional income, thereby declaring of Rs. 70,00,00 was made voluntarily to buy peace and taxes were paid thereon and the revised return filed by the assessee was also accepted, therefore there was no occasion for the department to levy penalty. In this regard Ld. AR relied upon the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....crepancies towards purchase expenses were pointed out and assessee declared an additional income of Rs. 70 lakhs on account of unverified expenses and for want of maintaining bills and vourchers and on the condition that the department shall not initiate any penalty proceeding against the assessee and in this regard we have perused question number 22, wherein Survey during the survey proceedings surface answer of the assessee was recorded. It is also not in dispute that additional income of Rs. 70,00,000 was reflected in the revised return which was filed by the assessee on 25.02.2012 and paid the required amount of taxes. Therefore in this scenario penalty could not be imposed we rely upon case the decision in the of CIT Vs. SAS Pharmaceut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arious family members of the assessee, certain queries were raised by the Revenue. On 27-2-1989, the assessee surrendered the amounts reflected by the various bank accounts in the names of the family members as his own income from undisclosed sources followed by revised returns filed on 31-3-1989. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars in the original returns of income and for this purpose, apart from the factum of the assessee having declared the amounts standing to the credit of the family members in the bank accounts, the Assessing Officer noted that such an amount reflected in the bank accounts in the names of the family members was not comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er: Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income Assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 Whether when an assessee files a revised return showing higher income and gives an explanation that he offered higher income to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of higher income having been subsequently declared Held, yes 12. In the case of Ajay Sangari & Co Vs. ACIT, 140 TTJ 388 (Chd) it was held as under: Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Penalty For concealment of income Assessment year 2005-06 After filing of return of income, a survey action was carried out at business premises of assessee-company during which certain documents were f....