TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 372
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ok quite a long time and accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The ld. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. A.Y. 2015-16 ITA No. 185/KOL/2026 3. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the deletion of penalty of Rs.1,05,78,537/- by the ld. CIT (A) as levied by the ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.09.20215, declaring total income of Rs.3,11,35,530/-. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 13.03.2019 and subsequent dates at the premises of the assessee. Accordingly, the notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued which was complied with by the assessee by filing the return of income. In the said return of income, the assessee voluntarily disclosed income amounting to Rs.3,05,09,534/-. The assessment was accordingly completed assessing the total income at Rs.6,37,36,050/- by making an addition of Rs.20,94,989/- only to the income of the assessee. The ld. AO issued notice u/s 274/271(1)(c) of the Act on 23.04.2021, giving show cause as to why t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This disclosure was based on an average GP rate of 15% applied to unaccounted sales of Rs. 20,33,96,892/- on appellant's voluntary offer. The disclosed income was properly included in the return filed under Section 153A. The disclosure was made voluntarily to buy peace of mind and to get relief from penalty and prosecution, if any. No Penalty should be imposed when Voluntary offer of Income was accepted. b) In this case the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed merely on the basis of voluntary offer made by the appellant without any incriminating documents unearthed to support such alleged concealment of income. Hence penalty is liable to be deleted. c) Offer of Rs. 3,05,09,534/- on account of undisclosed profit on unaccounted sale in the return filed u/s 153A, was duly accepted by the Ld. AO, and therefore, no Penalty is imposable u/s. 271(1)(c). No Penalty imposable u/s. 271(1)(c) on the income offered in the Return filed u/s 153A when the same is duly accepted during assessment proceedings. d) The appellant not furnished any material particulars in respect the same which could be termed as "inaccurate". Further, in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r section 132(4) at Rs. 3,05,09,534/- and requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. But for imposing the penalty under Explanation 5A on the basis of statement recorded during the course of search, it is necessary to find any income based on any entry in any books of account or other documents or transactions and the assessee claimed that such entry represents his income in any previous year. The issue has been considered by various High Courts as well as by ITAT as relied upon by the assessee, which are squarely applicable to the case of the assessee. As no incriminating documents were found during the course of search, therefore, Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) is not applicable. 1.6. Further, section 153A of the I.T. Act which starts with a non-obstante clause specifically overriding the provisions of section 139 of the I.T. Act and thereafter as per the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 153A, the return filed in response to notice under section 153A will have to be treated as if such return was a return required to be furnished as per the provisions of section 139. Hence, it is only this return u/s. 153A qua which penalty for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3,05,09,534/-. The Assessing Officer, sans any incriminating material found during the course of search had further added on estimate basis an amount of Rs. 20,94,989/- and thereafter levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention of the Revenue that penalty is leviable merely because the assessee made a voluntary disclosure is fallacious. If the assessee had not made such disclosure, the Assessing Officer might have proceeded on a rudimentary estimate basis, sans incriminating material. Since, this is an unabated assessment, such an addition, by the ratio of PCIT, Central-3 vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), would have been quashed ab initio. Therefore, penalizing the assessee only for being candid and forthcoming is not justified in law. In the conspectus of the above, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on account of voluntarily disclosure made by the appellant of Rs. 3,05,09,534/- and the addition of the AO on estimate basis of Rs. 20,94,989/- is unsustainable in law and deserves to be deleted. In view of the above, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the amount of addition of Rs. 20,9....