9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claring income of Rs.3,62,840/- besides agricultural income of Rs.1,00,000. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in case of the assessee on 23-1-2007. Pursuant to the survey, assessee filed a revised return on 23-3-2007 declaring income of Rs.17,99,840/- which included additional income of Rs.14,37,000/-. The agricultural income u/s 143(3) of the Act vide assessment order dt. 15-12-2008 accepting the income admitted in the revised return. However, the Assessing Officer initiated proceeding for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing a show cause notice to the assessee. The assessee in her explanation stated that during survey assessee along with her husband were asked to pay tax of Rs.30,00,000/- with an assurance th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment. Further, it was submitted by the assessee that on similar facts in assessee's own case for the asst. year 2005-06 the ITAT deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the penalty observing as under:- "On perusal of the facts of the case with reference to the submissions of appellant, the observations made in the assessment order as well as the penalty order, reveal that the appellant has offered to pay the tax on additional incomes admitted during the survey proceedings, without any specific findings by the Assessing Officer and in absence of any specific information had filed revised return of income, voluntarily, within the stipulated time. It is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned AR on the other hand strongly supporting the order of the CIT (A) submitted that additional income was offered by the assessee on the assurance of the department that return will be accepted and no penalty will be imposed. It was submitted that as the revised return was filed within the time allowed u/s 139 of the Act and income declared was also accepted by the Assessing Officer there is no concealment of income. In support of such contention the learned AR relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Suresh Chandra Mittal vs. CIT (251 ITR 9). He further submitted on similar facts penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act was deleted by the ITAT in assessee's own case in ITA No.1008/Hyd/09 dated 13-1-2010. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee is accepted no penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, it is very much evident that during the survey operation, the assessee and her husband were asked to pay taxes of Rs.30 lakhs. On the suggestions of the department assessee and her husband paid the taxes by declaring corresponding income spread over assessment years 2005- 06 to 2007-08. 7. Under identical facts and situation the Assessing Officer also imposed penalty for assessment year 2005-06 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On a perusal of the penalty order passed for asst. year 2005-06, a copy of which is placed on record, it is very much clear that not only the basis for penalty proceedings is the survey conducted on 23-1-2007 but penalty order is similar in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
