Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1824 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - whether the ‘revision’ by the assessee of her return of income, admitting additional income is voluntary or not? - HELD THAT:- Both in the assessment and the penalty proceedings, the assessee explained that her act was voluntary and guided only by her intent to purchase peace and avoid litigation. How, then, one may ask, can under the circumstances it be said that the assessee is not communicated or aware of the basis or the ground on which penalty is proposed to be levied, or the same are not known to her. There is, however, no explanation on merits, much less substantiated. And, in-as-much as the revision is prompted by the unearthing of the unexplained investment in the company, the same cannot be regarded as voluntary. Assessee is bound to explain the additional income per her ‘revised return’ or, per contra, the omission of the said disclosure per her original return, satisfying the conditions of Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c), The plea as to ‘by peace’ or ‘avoid litigation’, etc., cannot be countenanced, even as explained in Mak Data [2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] which is clearly applicable in the facts of the case. Reference in this context also be made to the recent decision in CIT v. Usha International Ltd. [2012 (11) TMI 589 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided against assessee.
|