TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. This appeal is barred by limitation by 115 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the delay, stating that the delay occurred on account of suffering from hypertension and anxiety during the relevant period. Considering the reasons stated in the application, and being satisfied that the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to any mala fide intention, we are of the view that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 115 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The sole issue involved in the present appeal is whether Ld..CIT(A) was justified in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). After considering the facts of the case, the findings recorded by the Ld. AO, and the submissions made by the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the levy of penalty. Ld.CIT(A) observed that assessee had failed to file the original return of income within the prescribed time and had not disclosed any taxable income voluntarily, despite admittedly having taxable income chargeable to tax. According to the Ld.CIT(A), the income came to be disclosed only after the reopening of the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and in response to the notice issued u/s. 148. The Ld.CIT(A), therefore, held that the disclosure made by the assessee was not voluntary but was a consequence of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Ld. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 271(1)(c) for penalising the assessee merely on account of non-filing of the original return is legally unsustainable. In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 322 (SC), wherein it has been held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be levied unless there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It is an admitted fact that qua the return submitted there is no variation in income, hence, the very imposition of penalty is fragile. He also relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai, in Pushpa Jadhav v. ITO in ITA No. 201/Mum/2023....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see were inaccurate nor pointed out any item of income which remained undisclosed in the return filed in response to the notice u/s. 148. The penalty has been levied solely on the premise that the assessee had not filed the original return of income within the prescribed time and disclosed the income only after issuance of notice u/s. 148. Merely because the return of income was filed in response to a notice u/s. 148, it does not automatically follow that the assessee is guilty of concealment of income warranting levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). Reassessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct. Reopening of an assessment cannot, by itself, be construed as conclusive proof of concealment so as to justify automatic le....