TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to point out any error in the approach of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.60 of 2015 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 5-11-2015 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. HARI PAL VERMA, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate and Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate For The Revenue : Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. This order shall dispose of ITA Nos.60 and 68 of 2015 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issue involved in both the appeals is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from ITA No.60 of 2015. 2. ITA No.60 of 2015 has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated 7.11.2014, Annexure A.17 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh bench 'A' Chandigarh in ITA No.737/CHD/2014 for the assessment year 2007-08, claiming following substantial question of law:- Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the action for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is unreasonable on the true and correct interpretation of the decision of CIT vs. Ram Sanehi Gian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee filed appeal before the Apex Court against the order dated 1.8.2013 which was also dismissed vide order dated 28.10.2013, Annexure A.14. The appeal filed before CIT(A) against the levy of penalty was dismissed vide order dated 5.12.2013, Annexure A.15. Still not satisfied, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal which was partly allowed vide order dated 7.11.2014, Annexure A.17 deleting the penalty imposed against the additions made on account of sale of paddy and rice and upholding the penalty qua cash deposits of ₹ 14 lacs. Hence the instant appeals by the assessee. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. After examining the entire material on record, it has been categorically recorded by the Tribunal that the surrender had been made on account of discrepancies found in the books of account, loose papers, documents etc. maintained by the assessee. The assessee had incorporated the surrendered amount in the profit and loss account but by showing the sale of opening stock at lower price, the income was again reduced to ₹ 48,054/-. The assessee deposited the amount of ₹ 14 lacs in the bank stating that miscellaneous assets were purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... products etc. the cash available was only ₹ 6500/-, therefore, no cash could possibly have been deposited. The assessee though incorporated the surrender amount in the P L account but by showing the sale of opening stock at lower price, the income was again reduced to ₹ 48,054/-. This clearly shows that the amount surrendered was nullified while filing return. However, later on assessee became wise and deposited the amount of ₹ 14 lacs in the bank and before us it was stated that the assessee purchased miscellaneous assets which were later on sold and the amount was deposited in the Bank. There is no evidence to show the existence of any miscellaneous assets therefore explanation given by the assessee is totally false. This is not a case of full disclosure of facts and therefore the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Limited 322 ITR 158 is also not applicable. In fact the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Ramesh Chander Gupta vs. Income tax Appellate Tribunal and others, 344 ITR 320 where excess stock was found during the survey and addition was made accordingly the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... least, it is fair and equitable to allow him to do so, because the assessee has already paid the necessary income-tax on that amount. This case was not relating to penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was relating to the issue of taking advantage by the assessee of the past intangible additions in its income while explaining the current income assessed from undisclosed sources, which is not the situation here. 9. In MAK Data P:.Limited vs. CIT, (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC), relied upon by the learned counsel for the revenue, the Apex Court while delving into identical situation upheld the levy of penalty on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was recorded as under:- 8. Assessee has only stated that he had surrendered the additional sum of ₹ 40,74,000/- with a view to avoid litigation, buy peace and to channelize the energy and resources towards productive work and to make amicable settlement with the income tax department. Statute does not recognize those types of defences under the explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the Appellant-assessee from the mischief of pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
