Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 1111 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/sec. 271(1)(c) - income disclosed in search action - only contention that has been submitted by the assessee in his defence on merits is that he has declared the suppressed receipts amount in his return of income filed u/sec. 153A - HELD THAT:- In the case of CIT v. Prasanna Duga [2015 (5) TMI 317 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has held that even subsequent to search, if the assessee voluntarily discloses a sum and offers the same to tax, since the said amount was not disclosed in original return, penalty levied u/sec. 271(1)(c) was justified. SLP against the same decision was dismissed in Prasanna Dugar [2015 (8) TMI 477 - SC ORDER] holding that even if assessee voluntarily disclosed a sum subsequent to search and offered said sum to tax, penalty levied under sec. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 5A was justified. Reverting to the present fact situation, it is evident that due to search action, it was disclosed that there had been suppression of receipts by the assessee. This suppression of receipts was also later on admitted by the assessee vide his statement u/sec.132(4). The suppress receipts were even disclosed as additional income in the return filed u/sec. 153A of the Act by the assessee. But the fact remains that if search had not taken place, then these suppressed receipts would not have been discovered and would have escaped being taxed. This is a definite case of concealment of income. Thus even on merits also, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the levy of penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. All the grounds, in both the appeals, raised by the assessee stands dismissed.
|