TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short' the Act') against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench"B" Chandigarh (for short the "Tribunal") passed in I.T.A.No. 983/CHD/2005 dated 28.2.2007 for the assessment year 2001-02 raising the following substantial question of law:-"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) at Rs.4,25,720/-?" The respondent is drawing income from salary, business income, house property and income from other sources. The return in this case was filed on 22.10.2001 declaring income of Rs.4, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove genuineness of the transportation expenses debited to profit and loss account as undisputedly, the Transporters to whom the payment of freight charges was made could not be traced and therefore,the expenses on account of freight charges made to these transporters could not be confirmed. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the surrender made by the assessee was never mutually agreed upon, as the same was rejected by the Assessing Officer, as the said surrender had been made only after investigation was carried out by the department and it was not bonafide and voluntary disclosure as the revised return was made only when the assessee came to know that there was detection of concealment by the department. Thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and it cannot be made out that the assessee has concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars merely because he has surrendered certain amount to avoid litigation and to buy peace of mind. This High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Suraj Bhan (2007) 159 Taxman (P H) held that penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of higher income having been subsequently declared. It was a case wherein the assessee filed the revised return showing higher income and gave an explanation that he offered higher income to buy peace of mind and to avoid litigation. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Suresh Chander Mittal (251 ITR 9)(SC) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
