9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24/- u/s 271(1)(c). The said penalty was levied for offering an amount of Rs. 61,64,239/- as remission of liability u/s 41(1). The same may please be deleted. Date of Hearing 29.10.2015 Date of Pronouncement 04.12.2015 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, supplement, alter and/or delete any of the above Grounds of appeal." 2. Brief facts of the case as recorded by the authorities below are as under: The Assessee filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 13/09/2009 declaring the total income of Rs. 1,29,48,900/- thereafter, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 26/12/2011 determining the total income at Rs. 1,91,13,140/-. The only addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer was of Rs. 61,64,239/- on acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed the written submission asking for deleting the penalty which in his view was not livable in the present case. The assessee contended before ld.CIT(A) that, the penalty proceedings have been wrongly initiated, even though the income was surrendered to buy peace. The ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the submissions made by the assessee in para 4 of his order. The ld. CIT(A) recorded that, the assessee could not substantiate its stand, in as much as the plea before the ld. AO, about offering of additional income voluntarily. It was only on scrutiny of assessment and query from the ld.AO that the assessee has come forward to offer the income. The plea taken by the assessee that the additions were made u/s 41(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal in time. We are therefore inclined to condone the delay. 7. On merits, the ld. AR submitted that there is an acknowledgement of liability i.e. existing as on 31/03/2009. Therefore, section 41(1) could not be applied to the facts of the present case. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee was not in a position to decide upon whether the disputed amount could be regarded as a remission of liability, as on the end of the financial year relevant to the assessment year. Therefore, no accurate particulars could be filed. 8. On the contrary, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee had agreed to consider this amount as a remission u/s 41(1) of the Act only during the assessment proceedings. It was submitted by the Ld.DR that it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The question is whether the assessee has offered any explanation for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Explanation to Section 271(1) raises a presumption of concealment, when a difference is noticed by the AO, between reported and assessed income. The burden is then on the assessee to show otherwise, by cogent and reliable evidence. When the initial onus placed by the explanation, has been discharged by him, the onus shifts on the Revenue to show that the amount in question constituted the income and not otherwise. 8. Assessee has only stated that he had surrendered the additional sum of Rs. 61,64,231/- with a view to buy peace and to avoid punitive action. Statute does not recognize those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
