TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01. The notice under s. 148 had been issued subsequently on26th Feb., 2001and the returns filed earlier were regularised by the AO under s. 148. The assessments were completed in all these cases on28th March, 2001. It is pertinent to note that the assessee had claimed exemption under s. 10(5B) of the IT Act, 1961, and the said claim was accepted which resulted in assessment of lesser income than the declared income. For example, in ITA No. 5185 the declared income was Rs. 9,45,704 but the assessment was completed on the total income of Rs. 7,15,670. Similar is the position in other appeals as the amount of declared income and assessed income is different but in all cases the assessed income is less than the declared income. Despite this fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion inasmuch as there cannot be any concealment where the entire income has been declared by the assessee in the original return. In the present case, it is admittedly clear that the entire income of the assessee was declared and on the contrary, the assessment was framed on a lesser income. Therefore, in our opinion, there was no concealment of income. This issue was also considered by the Tribunal on a Bench in the case of Yashwant B. Chigteri vs. Asstt. CIT (2001) 70 TTJ (Pune) 242 : (2000) 75 ITD 377 (Pune) to which one of us (JM) was party. The Bench, after following the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan vs. CIT (1979) 12 CTR (SC) 198 : (1979) 120 ITR 1 (SC), judgment of Madras High Court in the case of S. Santhosa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the provisions of Expln. 3 were not applicable at this stage. It must be mentioned that the learned Departmental Representative has relied on the decision of Special Bench in the case of ITO vs. Kunden Silk (2003) 80 TTJ (Pune)(TM) 421 : (2004) 266 ITR 45 (Pune)(AT), for the proposition that penalty can be levied even where the entire income is disclosed in the original return. After going through the said decision, we find that the reliance placed by the learned Departmental Representative is misplaced inasmuch as the income surrendered by the assessee at the time of survey had not been included in the original return. Therefore, on facts that judgment cannot apply to present case, the learned Departmental Representative has also relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
