TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 2155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions of the assessee and with the assistance of ld. DR. 3. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are : The assessee is engaged in manufacturing and trading of wooden boxes. The assessee filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year on 14-10-2010 declaring total income of Rs. 25,40,210/-. A survey action u/s. 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 23rd and 24th March, 2011. During survey proceedings, the assessee made declaration of additional income of Rs.1,50,000/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income on 01-04-2011 declaring income of Rs. 26,90,201/-. In scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of Rs.1,50,000/- that was declared by the assessee in revised return. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 22-08-2013 levied penalty of Rs. 66,160/- u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of income on the aforesaid declaration made by assessee. Aggrieved by the order levying penalty, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide impugned order upheld levy o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed AO has levied penalty at Rs.66,160/- which is wrong and which ought to have been levied at calculated tax of Rs.45,000/-. (b) The learned AO has passed the Order on the conclusions that the appellant has will fully concealed the particulars of income to evade the tax, without any satisfaction regarding concealment of income and therefore in absence of such satisfaction being recorded the penalty proceeding are bad in law and without jurisdiction and authority. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/ or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal and/or to adduce and rely upon such further evidence/ additional evidence and/or documents as may be required at any time during the appeal proceedings." 4. The assessee has filed detailed written submissions and has placed reliance on various decisions to support his contentions. For the sake of brevity the elaborate written submissions filed by the assessee are not reproduced in the order. 5. Shri Yogesh Kumar representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee had filed original written of income for the assessment year 2010-11 on 14-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rted as 392 ITR 4 is concerned, it is on a different issue and does not deal with ambiguity of charge in the notice issued u/s. 274 of the Act. Hence, the same would not support the cause of assessee. Consequently, the ground No. 1 raised in the appeal by the assessee is dismissed. 9. In ground No. 2 of the appeal the assessee has assailed levy of penalty on the ground that the assessee has voluntarily disclosed the income in the revised return and the same was accepted by the Assessing Officer, thus, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not attracted. A perusal of documents on record reveal that the assessee has filed original return of income on 14-10-2010 declaring income of Rs.25,40,210/-. Thereafter, survey action u/s. 133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee in March, 2011. The assessee filed revised return of income u/s. 139(5) declaring income of Rs.26,90,201/- including additional income of Rs.1,50,000/- offered during survey. The revised return filed by the assessee was accepted by the Department as the assessee had filed the same within the period prescribed under the Act. The Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) made ad hoc ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 230 CTR (SC) 320 : (2010) 36 DTR (SC) 449 : (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and relevant held portion of the said judgment is as follows : "A glance at the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The meaning of the word 'particulars' used in s. 271(1)(c) would embrace the details of the claim made. Where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. .... There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed by the assessee, because that is the only document where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. To attract penalty, the details supplied in the return mus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bstantial weight. It is to be kept in mind that s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is a penal provision and such a provision has to be strictly construed. Unless the case falls within the four corners of the said provision, penalty cannot be imposed. Sub-s. (1) of s. 271 stipulates certain contingencies on the happening whereof the AO or the CIT(A) may direct payment of penalty by the assessee. We are concerned herewith the fundamentality provided in cl. (c) of s. 271(1) of the Act, which authorizes imposition of penalty when the AO is satisfied that the assessee has either : (a) concealed the particulars of his income; or (b) furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 13. It is not the case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as in the IT return, particulars of income have been duly furnished and the surrendered amount of income was duly reflected in the IT return. The question is whether the particulars of income were concealed by the assessee or not. It would depend upon the issue as to whether this concealment has reference to the IT return filed by the assessee, viz., whether concealment is to be found in the IT return. 14. We may, fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wever, there cannot be any penalty only on surmises, conjectures and possibilities. Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act has to be construed strictly. Unless it is found that there is actually a concealment or non-disclosure of the particulars of income, penalty cannot be imposed. There is no such concealment or non-disclosure as the assessee had made a complete disclosure in the IT return and offered the surrendered amount for the purposes of tax." In the instant case as we have observed earlier that the assessee has offered entire amount of disclosure made during survey in the revised return of income u/s. 139(5) and assessment was made on the said revised return. The Assessing Officer could not have initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of additional income declared by the assessee in the revised return as there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee in the revised return filed. Thus, in view of the facts of the case and case laws discussed above, we find merit in this ground of appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and ground No. 2 raised in the appeal is allowed. 13. In ground No. 3 of the appe....