Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kol-XV Versus Arun Kumar Khetwat

2016 (1) TMI 82 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Penalty under Section 271(1)(C) - concealed income as detected by the Department during the survey - ITAT deleted the penalty - notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued, finding no other alternative the assessee surrendered income to avoid penal consequences - Held that:- Since admittedly the revised return for the said assessment year was filed by the assessee before issuance of notice under section 148, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal requires no interference. The judge .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Avratosh Majumdar, Adv, Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv JUDGMENT Soumitra Pal, J. The Department seeks admission of the instant appeal on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as concealed income as detected by the Department during the survey operation and when the notice under Section 148 of the Act .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessee and the concerned group companies. During the course of survey it was detected that the assessee made investment of ₹ 30 lakhs with M/s.Khetawat Stock Broking Ltd, relevant to the assessment year 2004-05. On being confronted with source of investment, the assessee admitted that the source of investment was the undisclosed income from his business activities. It was found that he was the proprietor of one M/s. Scrap (India) and also directors of various group companies. After surv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

90/-. After assessment was completed, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. In the said penalty proceedings, while imposing 100% tax on the said income it was held, inter alia, as under : I have considered the assessee s explanation as above. This explanation is not tenable because of the following reasons :- a) First of all, the issue regarding additional income of ₹ 30 lakhs arose only after detection of undisclosed investment made by the assessee during .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ncome while submitting return u/s 139. Mere showing of additional income in a return filed in response to notice u/s 148 does not give immunity from penal action u/s 271(1)(c) to the assessee. In view of the above, I consider this case as a fit one for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). I impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded…. Aggrieved by the order imposing penalty, appeal was filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) which was allowed. The relevant portion of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ade during the Survey have been brought on record to justify initiation and subsequent levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The appellant s disclosure followed up by filing revised return in fact reflects its bonafide intention as also the case for non-imposition of penalty. The A.O. in his order has imposed penalty simply by referring to the disclosure made in the course of Survey proceedings while ignoring the appellants plea for bona fide actions on one hand. On the other hand no factrs have been b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t to the fore by the A.O. in the assessment proceedings other than the fact of admission of additional income. In view of the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Spinning& Weaving.supra, the A.O. still has to establish the conditions for the levy of penalty and considering the ratio of judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT vs SAS Pharmaceuticals, it is the assessment proceedings and ROI and not the Survey proceedings which are relevant for the levy of Penalty. The Ho ble Mumbai Trib .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

CIT(A) preferred appeal which was dismissed by the Tribunal by holding, inter alia, as follows :- We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that in this case the assessee has disclosed all the facts and its full income in the revised I.T.return filed by him voluntarily for the A.Y.2004-05 before issuing of notice u/s 148 of the Act. He has also paid self assessment tax and tax demanded after the assessment completed. Thus we agree with the proposition that the additional in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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