TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs has not been tendered by the appellant-assessee. It is only thereafter before passing the order of penalty that the appellant paid further tax which was payable on the additional income of ₹ 40 lakhs. Moreover, the immunity available from penalty under clause 2 to Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was forsaken by the appellant not honouring the statement made by him under Section 132(4) of the Act. This was on account of not having disclosed the same in the return of income filed only consequent to notice under Section 153A of the Act. We find that all the Authorities have concurrently come to the finding of fact that non disclosure of additional income of ₹ 40 lakhs in the return of income as originally filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al income which has not been disclosed during the regular assessment proceedings. Consequent to notice under Section 153A of the Act, the appellant-assessee has filed on 14 August 2007 its return of income for the subject Assessment year. However, in its return of income as filed, the appellant failed to disclose the additional income of ₹ 40 lakhs which had been disclosed during the search and seizure proceedings. Moreover, the tax payable on the above undisclosed amount was not paid while filing original return of income. Thus, during the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer confronted the appellant with the statement made during the course of search and non disclosure of additional income of ₹ 40 lakhs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onted with the non disclosure of income in the return of income, during the course of assessment proceedings. On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order has upheld the finding of the CIT (A). The impugned order renders a finding of fact that the disclosure of ₹ 40 lakhs as income in the revised Return of Income was after the Assessing Officer discovered / found the non-disclosure during the assessment proceedings. 6. Mr. Subramaniam, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that penalty should not be imposed for a mere mistake/ oversight. It is submitted that the appellant had already disclosed the additional income during the search proceedings. Therefore, there was no intent to deprive the revenue of its dues. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
