TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment except for the amount surrendered by the assessee and in these circumstances it cannot be said that there was any concealment. Penalty should be imposed only when there is some element of deliberate default and not a mere mistake. This being the position, the furnishing of inaccurate particulars was simply a mistake and not a deliberate attempt to evade tax. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001 (6) TMI 63 - SUPREME Court ) observed that where assessee has surrendered the income after persistence queries by the AO and where revised return has been regularized by the Revenue, explanation of the assessee that he has declared additional income to buy peach of mind and to come out of waxed litigation c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the share application money received during the year of ₹ 89,50,000/- as income of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10. The AO being not satisfied by the above explanation, added ₹ 89.50 lakhs in assessee s income u/s.69A and also levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c). 3. By the impugned order, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO imposing penalty against which assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. We have considered rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by the lower authorities in their respective orders as well as cited by ld. DR AR during the course of hearing before us. From the record we fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us. It is also not the case of the revenue that material was found at the assessee s premises to indicate that share application money received was an arranged affair to accommodate assessee s unaccounted money. Thus there was no detection by the AO that share capital was not genuine. The surrender of share capital after issue of the notice u/s.143(2) could not lead to any inference that it was not voluntary. Admittedly the assessee has offered the amount of share capital for taxation voluntarily and it was not the case of revenue that the same was done after its detection by the department. It is quite clear from the record that this entire transaction was not detection of the AO that the share capital was not genuine and that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cept of penalty has not undergone change by virtue of the said judgment. It was categorically observed that penalty should be imposed only when there is some element of deliberate default and not a mere mistake. This being the position, the furnishing of inaccurate particulars was simply a mistake and not a deliberate attempt to evade tax. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal 251 ITR 9 (SC) observed that where assessee has surrendered the income after persistence queries by the AO and where revised return has been regularized by the Revenue, explanation of the assessee that he has declared additional income to buy peach of mind and to come out of waxed litigation could be treated as bona fide, accordingly levy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
