TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrender. - Held that:- The Tribunal has recorded a categoric finding that there was no material to infer concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars - The contention that in every case where surrender is made inference of concealment of income must be drawn under Section 58 of the Evidence Act cannot be accepted - the case is not a fit case for levy of penalty. - I.T.A. No.14 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 31-3-2011 - MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Present:- Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Standing Counsel for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act ) against the order of the Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that since under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872, admitted facts need not be proved, once the assessee made surrender, it could be taken to be admitted that the assessee had concealed income. On appeal, the Tribunal set aside the above view as follows:- 5. ..From the record, we found that addition of Rs.15 Lakhs was made only on the basis of surrender made during the course of survey and by accepting the revised return filed by the assessee. In the assessment order, the AO has not pointed out even a single defect either in the books of accounts or vouchers etc. maintained by the assessee or in the system of accounting being followed for disclosing true and correct income. Not only the survey team but during the course of ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court in the case of Siddharth Enterprises, vide order dated 14.07.2009 held after considering the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles- 306 ITR 277 that the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles (supra) cannot be read as laying down that in every case where particulars of income are inaccurate, penalty must follow. Wheat has been laid down is that qualitative difference between criminal liability u/s 276C and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) had to be kept in mind and approach adopted to the trial of a criminal case need not be adopted while considering the levy of penalty. Even so, concept of penalty has not undergone change by virtue of the said judgment. It was categorically observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en voluntary surrender of concealed income may not exonerate the assessee of its liability to pay penalty if it can be held that there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In the present case, the Tribunal has recorded a categoric finding that there was no material to infer concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The contention that in every case where surrender is made inference of concealment of income must be drawn under Section 58 of the Evidence Act cannot be accepted. Judgment of the Madras High Court also does not lay down such wide proposition. The observations therein are on facts of that case. The said judgment is, thus, distinguishable. 6. No substantial question of law ari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
