TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn and that the revised return was filed only after the search, this Court held that penalty was leviable -do not find any justification to cancel the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer, which is admittedly a minimum penalty - Decided against of assessee. - 178 to 180 of 2005 & TCMP Nos.138 to 140 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 20-6-2011 - Mrs.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, Mr.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA, JJ. For Appellant : Mrs.P.Vedavallee For Respondent: Mr.J.Naresh Kumar C O M M O N J U D G M E N T CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. These three Tax Case Appeals are filed by the assessee as against the order of the Tribunal relating to the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 raising the following questions of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment year 1991-92 Rs.1,56,189/- and for the assessment year 1992-93, the assessee did not file any return. There was a search in the premises of one R.Sonai, who happens to be the Managing Partner of the assessee company, on 27.3.1992. The search resulted in the seizure of bank deposits and jewellery. The Managing Partner R.Sonai admitted that the unexplained investments were out of the undisclosed income of the firm. Following this, a revised return was filed in respect of the first two assessment years and for the third year, the firm filed a return admitting the total income. The assessee offered the income, which was stated to be undisclosed income of the firm to be distributed among the above said three assessment years. After completi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mon order, it considered the claim of the assessee that there was no wilfulness as regards the offering of an additional income at the hands of the assessee; that the same was offered only to purchase peace and hence, in the circumstances, the assessee contended that the question of levy of penalty did not arise. The Tribunal, however, rejected the claim of the assessee by following the decision of this Court reported in (2000) 244 ITR 510 (P.Govindaswamy V. CIT), where under similar circumstances following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Madhusudhanan V. CIT reported in (2001) 251 ITR 99, this Court confirmed the levy of penalty. The Tribunal held that in view of the introduction of Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this Court had elaborately considered the case law on the subject and pointed out to the decision in the case of K.P.Madhusudhanan V. CIT reported in (2001) 251 ITR 99, rendered after the introduction of Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and this Court held that when the concealment of the income was with reference to the original return and there was no explanation at all as regards the non-disclosure, the mere claim that the income was offered in the revised return, as a matter of purchasing peace, by itself, would not exonerate the assessee from the culpability. Having regard to the fact that the assessee had not disclosed any reason for the omission in the original return and that the revised return was filed only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
