TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1634
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 3,75,652/-. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee did not file her return of income originally u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the proceedings were initiated u/s. 147 and notice u/s. 148 was issued. In response, the assessee filed her return of income stating that the same may be treated as a return filed in compliance with the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In the return of income, the assessee disclosed 'Income from salary', loss under the head 'Income from House Property', Short Term Capital Gains and 'Income from other sources' and total income was disclosed at Rs. 18,05,950/- and tax liability was determined at Rs. 3,75,650/- and after claiming credit of TDS of Rs. 4,30,8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....losed. It was submitted that the reassessment proceedings were completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 by accepting the returned income without making any addition, disallowance or variation whatsoever and in absence of any addition to the income or any finding of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the foundational requirements for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) does not stand satisfied. It was further submitted that the non-filing of return u/s. 139(1) by itself, does not ipso facto attract penalty for concealment, particularly when the income disclosed in response to Section 148 has been accepted. 6. The submissions so filed by the assessee were considered by the ld CIT(A). As per the ld. CIT(A), it is an admitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stands satisfactorily explained in terms of Explanation 1 to the said section. It was held that in the instant case, the explanation offered by the assessee does not sufficiently discharge the onus cast under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) and accordingly, the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was held to be justified and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 7. Against the said order and findings of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and it was submitted that all the income stood fully disclosed in the return filed in response to notice u/s. 148, that the AO accepted such disclosure without any modification,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which defines the term tax sought to be evaded in cases where Explanation (3) applies. 10. It was submitted that Explanation (3) talks about the situation where the assessee fails without the reasonable cause to furnish within the period specified under sub-section (1) of Section 153, a return of its income which is required to be furnished u/s. 139 and until the expiry of the period aforesaid, no notice has been issued to him and the Assessing Officer is satisfied that in respect of such assessment year, such person has taxable income, then such person shall for the purposes of clause (c), be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income in respect of such assessment year notwithstanding that such person furnishes a return of h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... determined the tax liability at Rs. 3,75,652/- and after giving credit of TDS amounting to Rs. 4,30,896/-, has determined the refund due to the assessee amounting to Rs. 55,244/-. It was accordingly submitted that on this limited ground itself, the assessee deserves the necessary relief as there is no tax sought to be evaded as the taxes were already deposited by way of TDS prior to the filing of the return of income itself and therefore, there is no question of any tax sought to be evaded by the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee has infact made the reference thereof in her submissions before the Assessing Officer which however, has not appreciated by the Assessing Officer while determining the tax sought to be evaded without ta....