Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 638 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disclosure of income being made as a result of survey proceeding and not voluntary - Held that:- The assessee’s plea that declaration was made by revised return or that the assessee asked for immunity from penalty for income declared in survey by and under letter dated 18.05.2010 or that disclosure was made to purchase peace and to avoid litigation or that the revised return was filed before the issuance of notice u/s 148 or that there is no addition on the income declared in revised return and therefore penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied is not tenable in law. Apart from that, voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penalty proceeding. Statute does not recognize those type of defenses under the explanation of Section-1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. All such issues have already been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd.-vs-CIT [2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] It appears from the records that the appellant failed to prove the genuineness and/or creditworthiness and identity of the persons who had given share capital and premium. Moreso, had it been the intention of the appellant to disclose the income voluntarily then the assessee would have disclosed the same by filing the revised return before survey which proves inaccurate particulars were filed in order to conceal the income in the original return of income. Explanation – 1A to Section 271(1)(c), therefore, is fully satisfied and thus ultimately penalty to the tune of ₹ 5,50,000/- has been levied upon the assessee for concealment of total income of ₹ 1,60,00,000/-. Taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter specially the conduct of the assessee and the intention as evident from the series of events and in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as cited above we find that the authorities below rightly applied the ratio of said judgment in the case in hand and levied penalty. We find no ambiguity in confirming the said penalty - decided in favour of revenue
|