TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rove that the deposits indeed is not the income of the assessee and this burden is not discharged in this case - Accordingly, if the assessee satisfactorily explain the nature and source of deposits, the penalty cannot be levied - Matter remanded back - Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose - ITA NOS. 1061 TO 1063 OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2011 - SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Shri A.V. Raghuram Respondent by : Shri Amlan Tripathy ORDER Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member : These three appeals preferred by the assessee are directed against the different orders passed by the CIT(A)-V, Hyderabad and pertains to assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 2006-07 with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)( c ) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the issue are that the assessee is an individual and filed its return of income originally as follows: Assessment years Date of filing Amount of income Declared 1. 2004-05 28.9.04 Rs. 5,70,950 2. 2005-06 27.9.05 Rs. 7,91,562 Rs. 1,95,000 (Agri Income) 3. 2006-07 21. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed Rs. 1.8 lakhs ( b ) towards low drawing Rs. 1 lakh Total Income Rs. 37,93,770 Assessment year 2005-06 Income originally admitted Rs. 7,91,562 Income offered 11.12.2007 Rs. 9 lakhs Further additional income offered vide return dt.27.12.07 Rs. 1.85,735 Additions made Claim of loan Rs. 1.85 lakhs Low drawings Rs. 1 lakhs TOTAL Rs. 21,62,300 Assessment year 2006-07 Income from property Originally admitted Rs. 13,37,415 Additions made u/s 68 Rs. 23.50 lakhs Additions disallowance of expenses Rs. 1.50 lakhs Low drawings Rs. 50,000 Total Rs. 38,87,415 Less Deduction u/s 80C Rs. 1 lakhs Total Rs. 37,87,415 Agricultural income Rs. 2.36 lakhs 7. Further, the assessing officer levied penalty in all these assessment years for concealing the income with regard to amount lying in the bank accounts of the assessee as follows: 2004-05 Rs. 5,94,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s only because of survey action, the bank accounts came to light and the assessee offered additional income only because he was caught by the department. Had there been no survey, the assessee would have very much concealed the accounts. Further, the explanation of the assessee is that an amount deposited in the banks is of various customers. The assessee not produced any customers or any documents suggesting the money deposited into bank accounts was belonged to some other persons. 12. He relied on the following case law: 1. Jyoti Laxman Konkar v. CIT (292 ITR 163) (Bom.) 2. CIT v. DKB Co. , (243 ITR 618) (Ker.) 3. Mahavir Metal Works v. CIT (92 ITR 512) (Har.) 4. CIT v. MRA Ansari and PN Khanna, JJ. (98 ITR 462) (Delhi) 5. Western Automobiles ( I ) v. CIT (112 ITR 1048) (Delhi) 6. CIT v. K. Shivashankar Bhat and R. Ramakrishna, JJ. (Kar.) 7. CIT v. Sudarshan Silks and Sarees (253 ITR 145) (Kar.) 8. CIT v. R. Sadayappan (253 ITR 203) (Mad.) 9. PC Joseph Bros. v. CIT (243 ITR 818) (Ker.) 10. CIT v. Krishna Co. (120 ITR 144) (Mad.) 11. Pool Singh Co. v. CIT (98 ITR 564) (Delhi) 12. CIT v. D R Gupta (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome made was not voluntarily but was as a result of detection by the assessing officer, filing of revised return is of no consequence. Section 139(5) applies to the limited recourses of cases where in the original return, there was any omission or any wrong statement and not to cases of concealment or false statement. If a case does not fall u/s 139(5) of the Act, the fact that revised return was filed after any investigation was started by the Department will be of no consequence. In the present case, admittedly the assessee has not disclosed the impugned bank accounts where the huge amounts were lying. There is no whisper about these bank accounts in the original return. The department detected these bank accounts and thereafter issued notice u/s 148 of the Act the assessee filed the returns for the two years i.e. assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06. In our opinion, the revised return filed by the assessee is of no consequence for not levying the penalty and that surrender was made on detection of the bank accounts by the department and it is not voluntary disclosure. Only because the assessee filed a revised return stating that the assessee offered additional income appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
