New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 1101 - ITAT CHENNAI

2015 (9) TMI 1101 - ITAT CHENNAI - [2015] 42 ITR (Trib) 275 (ITAT [Chen]) - Penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) read with section Sec. 250 - Held that:- From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the assessee has not concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars in the return of income filed before the Revenue. The excess stock found at the time of search was taken into account for arriving at the income of the assessee during the relevant assessment year as observed by Ld. Assessing Off .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pellant : Mr.N.Madhavan, JCIT D.R For The Respondent : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan,Advocate ORDER PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Revenue, aggrieved by the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-VI, Chennai dated 30.03.2014 in ITA No.384/13-14 passed under Sec.271(1)(c) read with section Sec. 250 of the Act. 2. The Revenue has raised four elaborate grounds in its appeal, however the crux of the issue is that the Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gold, 2,75,223.140 gms of silver and 5.430 Carats of Diamond and the assessee firm had agreed to offer the same as excess stock valued at ₹ 5,03,00,072/- Thereafter, the assessment was completed U/s.143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2010 assessing the admitted income amounting to ₹ 74,55,303/- which included the excess stock found at the time of survey amounting to ₹ 5,03,00,072/-. The gist of the order is reproduced herein below:- During the course of survey on 28.02.2008, inventory .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Subsequently the Ld.A.O in the penalty proceedings levied penalty for ₹ 9,62,094/- by observing as under:- In response to the notice issued, the assessee has filed a reply, dated 26.01.2011and 09.06.2011 requesting to drop the penalty proceedings, since, the Assessing Officer did not make any additions, there is no concealment of income and he has co-operated with the department by agreeing the additions made and paid the taxes due. The reasons explained by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is calculated at ₹ 31,13,574/-. Hence, the tax to be evaded including education cess works out to ₹ 9,62,094/-. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case , I hold that this is a fit case for levy of penalty U/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly penalty of ₹ 9,62,094/-(Rupees nine lakhs sixty two thousand and ninety four only) is levied U/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09. 5. On app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

accepted by the Assessing Officer. No positive concealment of income was detected by the Assessing Officer which were not recorded in the books of accounts. The department arrived at the figure of the income of the appellant during the A.Y under consideration on the basis of the entries recorded in the books of accounts. Further, the explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) applies only in respect of the cases wherein the return was filed after the expiry of the time limit as per Section.153 of the IT .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Dr.Satish B Gupta reported in (2011) 135 ITR 0611 held that the duty to disclose the particulars of income arises at the time when the assessee furnished the return of income U/s.139 of the IT Act and if in filing his return he conceals the particulars of income or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the return of income. In the case of Patna guinea House & Others Vs. Ld. CIT (2000) 161 CTR (PAT 536); (2000) 243 ITR 274(Pat) it is held that there is no case for levy of penalty if income is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the return of income. Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ld. CIT Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals reported in 335 ITR 0259 held that no penalty is leviable if the assessee discloses the particulars of income and surrendering the entire income in the return duty filed. Hon ble ITAT Chennai B Bench in the case of RMP Infotech P Ltd reported in (2011) 012 ITR (Trib) 0581 held that penalty is not leviable in a case where no clear finding in the penalty order whether addition on account of concealment of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version