Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Jayapal Sankarappa Naicker Versus DCIT, Circle-III, Coimbatore-2

2016 (3) TMI 968 - ITAT CHENNAI

Penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) - surrender of income in revised return - Held that:- The assessee filed revised return in time offering the additional income voluntarily in good faith to purchase peace with the Department, though in the course of investigation and to avoid protracted litigation. Thus, we see that it is a case of simply accepting the additional income by the assessee in the course of investigation and filing the revised return in time and to avoid protracted litigation as to in whos .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

016 - SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Mr.A.S.Sriraman,Advocate For The Respondent : Mr.A.B.Koli,JCIT, D.R ORDER PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Assessee, aggrieved by the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-I, Coimbatore dated 30.04.2012 in Appeal No.09/11-12 for assessment year 2008-09 in confirming the levy of penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Brief .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ipt of ₹ 28,34,240/- to tax only after the course of investigation done by the Investigation Wing. Therefore, AO was of the view that prim facie assessee has concealed /filed inaccurate particulars of income. In response to the penalty notice, the assessee vide letter dated 10.03.2011 stated that revised return was filed pursuant to an enquiry in order to buy a peace of mind the additional income was offered. The assessee further submitted that he has fully co-operated with the Department .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ised return was accepted by the Revenue without any addition and therefore, no penalty could be levied. He also placed reliance in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s.Ram Thanga Nagai Maligai in ITA No.2183/Mds./2014 vide order dated 10.06.2015. The Counsel for the assessee submits that the impugned capital gain was liable to tax in the hands of AOP comprising of the assessee and four others, who jointly owned the property which was sold collectively and hence, the AOP being a taxable entity under 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

or the investigation assessee would not have admitted additional income, therefore there is a concealment of income and thus, the AO is justified in levying penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following decisions:- 1 K P Madhusudhanan Vs.CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC) 2 P.Govindswamy Vs. CIT [2001] 116 Taxman 155 (Mad.) 3 G.C.Agarwal Vs. CIT [1990] 186 ITR 571 (SC) 4 F.C.Agarwal v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 408(Guj.) 5 M.Sajjanraj Nahar Vs. CI .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

layam Village for a total consideration of ₹ 4,77,500 vide sale deed 2423/2005 executed in their favor and this same agriculture land was sold for a total consideration by three deeds of sale executed as under on the same day as below: Sl. .No. Document No. Dated Sale Price(Rs. ) 1. 5317/2007 13.12.2007 Rs.25,28,000/- 2. 5318/2007 13.12.2007 Rs.52,00,000/- 3. 5319/2007 13.12.2007 Rs.17,00,800/- The vendors and the purchasers are one and the same in all the three documents. There was no sea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n there is no material at all to indicate there are payments of ONMONEY in the transaction. Apart from the statement recorded neither in the assessment proceedings nor in the penalty proceedings any material has been sighted to show that the assessee is guilty of concealment of income. Apart from the above it was admitted position that the property in question was purchased jointly and collectively sold and automatically the property was purchased by the A.O.P. comprising 1. S. Tamarai kannan 2. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssee and not for concealment of income and further if no material is found or brought on record to establish the concealment NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED. The A.O. should be satisfied that the assessee is guilty of concealment of income and then only should initiate penalty proceedings. If the order of assessment itself is Invalid in law the Penalty proceedings falls to the Ground. 4.2 In the case of CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal reported in [2000] 241 ITR 124 (M.P.), the assessee filed returns orig .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Revenue and once the assessing authority had failed to take any objection in the matter, the declaration of income made by the assessee in his revised returns and the explanation that he had done so to buy peace with the Department and to come out of vexed litigation could be treated as bona fide. Therefore, no penalty could be levied for concealment. This decision of Hon ble Madhya Preadsh High Court has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal reported i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

additional income to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation. Penalty orders were passed and the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the orders. But the Appellate Tribunal held that the Department had not discharged its burden of proving concealment and had simply rested its conclusion on the act of voluntary surrender done by the assessee in good faith, and that penalty could not be levied. On a reference, the High Court held that no penalty could be levied for concealment (see [2000] 241 ITR 124) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version