TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Zin the case of CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal reported in [ 2001 (6) TMI 63 - SUPREME Court] will apply. Thus following the said decision, we hold that there is no concealment of income. Thus we direct the ld. Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act.- Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A.No.1141/Mds. /2012 - - - Dated:- 19-2-2016 - 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, Coimbat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee filed revised return offering the additional income and the revised 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, the on-money if at all it should be taxed in the hands of AOP but not in the hands of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 search in the premises of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot 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 originally showing a meager income. Later on, in pursuance of a notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, revised returns were filed showing higher income to purchase peace of mind and to avoid vexatious litigation. The revised returns were a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad 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). The Department preferred appeals to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals holding that no interference with the order of the High Court was called for. Decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL [2000] 241 ITR 124 affirmed. As can be seen from the above decision, there was a search and pursuant to search notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued. The assessee filed revised return showing a higher income, voluntarily surrendered in good f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
