9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.1261050/- ? (b) Whether in the circumstances and the facts of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee filed revised return only after the case was selected for scrutiny and after issue of a questionnaire and as such, the additional income disclosed by the assessee in revised return was not voluntary ?" 2. Issue pertains to penalty of Rs.12.61 lac (rounded off) imposed by the Assessing Officer, which came to be deleted by the Commissioner of Appeals and which order came to be upheld by the Tribunal. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06 had filed his original return of income declaring total income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of CIT v. J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar (110 ITR 602). The similar view has been taken by P & H High Court in case of CIT v. Gururam Das Fruit and Vegetable Agency (254 ITR 361) wherein it was held that where the assessee has filed revised return disclosing his entire income and paid taxes thereon before the issuance of notice u/s.148, no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is leviable. The jurisdictional high court in case of CIT Vs. Shankerlal Nebhmal Uttamchandani 311 ITR 327 (Guj.) has held that revised return filed before the detection of concealment, in such case no penalty is leviable. Respectfully following above decision & in view of the above discussion, the penalty levied by the AO of Rs.12,61,050/- is hereby ordered to be cancelled." 5. The R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled the revised return and disclosed additional income. Such additional disclosure of Rs.37 lac included loans taken from various persons totalling to Rs.19 lac and to cover error of omission and commission, if any. Reason for filing revised return was shown to be that the business was substantially looked after by the brother, who would have been in a position to comply with the details. In his absence, such details would not be easily available and it was, therefore, that the assessee opted to file the revised return. In our view, the Tribunal having appreciated the relevant facts in its proper perspective and having considered the various decisions, committed no error in deleting the penalty. 7. We additionally notice that this Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... midars of the assessee." 8. In the present case also, it is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee filed revised return since some of the details of inaccurate particulars of the income were detected by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment. In our opinion, the Tribunal therefore committed no error. 9. We may, however, clarify that we should not be seen to have approved the observation of the CIT (Appeals) to the effect that once the revised return was filed within the time limit prescribed under Section 139(5) of the Act, there could be no penalty because the liability to penalty and filing of the revised return are mutually exclusive and that if the case falls within the scope of Section 139(5) of the Act, there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
