9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A). 2. Shri N. K. Neb appeared for the revenue and Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty appeared for the assessee. 3. It was the submission by the Ld. DR that in regard to the levy of penalty u/s. 271`(1)(b) of the Act, the assessee had originally filed its return of income for AY 2004-05 on 01.11.2004 on the basis of provisional accounts. For the AY 2005-06, the assessee had filed its original return on 31.10.2005. It was the submission that notice u/s. 148 of the Act came to be issued on the assessee for both the assessment years on 17.03.2009. It was the submission that there was no compliance to the said notice u/s. 148 of the Act and reminders had been sent to the assessee on 12.08.2009, 21.10.2009 and 23.10.2009. It was the submission that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the assessee on the basis of the original provisional return. Admittedly, in the return in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act much higher income was disclosed which is on the basis of CAG report, which was not even in the knowledge of the AO. The CAG report admittedly was received by the assessee on 24.03.2008. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) further shows that the tax audit report was obtained from the tax auditors only on 06.06.2008. Further, a perusal of the assessment order in the present case also clearly shows that for both the assessment years the assessment has been passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Once, an assessment order is passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act that too accepting the returned income, it is presume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal return for AY 2004-05 was filed on 01.11.2004 and for AY 2005-06 on 31.10.2005. It was the submission that as both the returns were returns u/s. 139(1)of the Act the time limit for filing the revised return u/s. 139(5) of the Act expired for the AY 2004-05 on 31.03.2006 and for AY 2005-06 on 31.03.2007. It was the submission that the CAG report was made available to the assessee on 24.03.2008 by which time the time for filing the revised return has already expired. It was the submission that though the revenue had no information in respect of the CAG report and the income that was quantified as per the CAG report in the case of the assessee, the assessee had paid its taxes and had filed its return in response to the notice u/s. 148 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been dislodged by the revenue. Admittedly, by the time the assessee had received the report of the CAG, the statutory time for filing the revised return for both the assessment years had expired. Further, a perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the income returned by the assessee in its return in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act has also been accepted by the AO without any tinkering thereto. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed any particulars of its income or has furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. Further, a perusal of the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act clearly shows that the assessee has given a detailed explanation for the variation in its income i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
