TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - there appears to be no basis for imposition of penalty on the ground that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income - revenue have not placed before us any material nor brought to our notice any contrary decision so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter – Decided against Revenue. - ITA Nos. 1179/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2014 - Shri N. S. Saini And Shri Kul Bharat,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri P. L. Kureel, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri S. N. Soparkar with Shri ORDER Per Shri N. S. Saini, Accountant Member: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XX, Ahmedabad dated 31.01.2011. 2. The sole issue involved in this a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cording to the A.O., the assessee disclosed the additional income because he knew that his case is taken up for investigation and in the course of investigation, he may not be able to defend his return of income. 6. On appeal, CITA[A] deleted the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of his finding that disclosure of additional income by the assessee on 31-3-2007 was prior to detection by the department. 7. Before us, the Departmental Representative contended that the revised return filed by the assessee was not a valid revised return, as the original return filed by the assessee was not within the time prescribed u/s. 139[1] of the Act. He also pointed out that notice u/s. 143[2] was issued in the case of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07 by issue of 142[1] Notice. No material was brought before us to show that there was any material available with the department prior to 31-3-2007 to show that there was some additional income then the income disclosed in the original return assessable in the hands of the assessee. In the circumstances, in our considered view, it cannot be held that the disclosure of additional income by the assessee on 31-3-2007 was after its detection by the department. 12. We find that the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Snita Transport [P] Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2014] 42 Taxmann.com 54 [Gujarat] is not applicable on the facts of the instant case. In that case, the Hon. Gujarat High Court observed that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar Agarwal [2005] 275 ITR 48/[2006] 153 Taxman 226 held that there the assessee surrenders his full income, though at a later stage, there was no question of any concealment on his part and consequently, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was leviable, and that an omission from return of income did not amount to concealment. The Hon. Jurisdictional High court while adjudicating the issue of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in the case of CIT v. Harnarain in their decision dated 31-10-2011 in ITA No. 2072/2010 concluded that surrender of the amount by the assessee after receipt of the questionnaire could not lead to an inference that it was not voluntary, in the absence of any material on record to suggest that it was bogus or untrue. It is further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
