TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stical purpose. - ITA Nos. 73 to 78/Ahd/2013 - - - Dated:- 21-6-2013 - Shri D. K. Tyagi And Shri A. Mohan Alankamony,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri P. M. Patel, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri Rahul Kumar, Sr. D.R. ORDER Per : D. K. Tyagi, Judicial Member These appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders of CIT(A)- XI, Ahmadabad, for A.Ys. 2003-04 to 2008-09, confirming the penalty imposed by Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act. Since facts in all the appeals are same and similar grounds of appeal except the figure has been taken. These were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order by taking the facts of A.Y. 03.04. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. In response to this, the assessee filed return of income on 19.03.2010 declaring taxable income of Rs.7,30,789/- and tax free income of Rs.22,302/-. The assessment was completed by assessment order dated 30.11.2010 wherein the returned income of Rs.7,30,789/- was accepted. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) were also initiated in the assessment order. 3. Since the assessee had not declared his taxable income of Rs. 7,30,789/- in the regular course, the Assessing Officer vide penalty order dated 30.05.2011 levied a penalty of Rs.2,19,236/- for concealment of particulars of income. The Assessing Officer while levying this penalty observed as under: "In this case, the assessee had not filed any return for A Y 2003-04. The FIU-IND had di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come for the A. Ys. 2003-04 to 2008-09, vide letter dated 11.11.2009. The bifurcation of undisclosed income admitted by the assessee, assessment year-wise are given as under:- Asst. Year 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Undisclosed Income 624,031 534,971 792,242 505,394 579,469 637,412 In view of the above information, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax of Rs.6,24,031/- for A. Y. 2003-04 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, " After issuing notice u/s 148 the assessee filed return on 19/03/2010 declaring total income of Rs. 7,30,789/- and tax free income of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inaccurate particulars of such income. Further, In Dilip N Shroff v JCIT [2007] 6 SCC 329, the Apex court explained the terms "concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars" which are the basis upon which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I T Act could be levied. Hon'ble Court observed that the expression "conceal" is of great importance. According to Law Lexicon, the word "conceal" means: "to hide or keep secret. The word "conceal" is con + celare which implies to hide. It means to hide or withdraw from observation; to cover or keep from sight; to prevent the discovery of; to withhold knowledge of. The offence of concealment is, thus, a direct attempt to hide an item of income or a portion thereof from the knowledge of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h. Another penalty notice was issued by the A.O. on 16.05.2011. This notice also remained uncomplied with. The fact of non-compliance of penalty notices remained uncontroverted even during the appellate proceedings. Since the appellant has not furnished any reply during the penalty proceedings, accordingly, the appellant's case is wholly and exclusively covered with the provisions of sub clause-A to explanation-1 to section 271(1)(C). Since the appellant has failed to file any reply during the penalty proceedings, accordingly, as per the provisions of sub-clause A of explanation 1 to section 271(1)(C), the items of undeclared income are hit by the penal provisions of sec.271(1)(C) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Reliance in this regard is place on K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, has categorically mentioned that no reply was filed by the assessee in compliance to the notice dated 16.05.2011, which was served upon the assessee. Similarly, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has also mentioned that during appellate proceeding before him also the fact of non compliance of penalty notice was not controverted. We are also surprised as to why the assessee did not bring the fact of replying the penalty notice dated 16.05.2011 of the Assessing Officer to the notice of ld. CIT(A). However, since the copy of reply has been placed on record before us claiming the same being received by the office of the Assessing Officer on 26.05.2011 as evidenced by the seal of Assessing Officer's office of even date and penalty order was pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
