TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the full particulars are disclosed, the assessee cannot be held guilty for the purposes of most punishment under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favor of assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 43 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2017 - Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal And Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ. For the Appellant : S.S.C. I.T. For the Respondent : Suyash Agrawal,Shakeel Ahmad ORDER Heard Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The dispute in the present appeal relates to assessment year 2007-08. During the financial year 2006-07 relevant for the assessment year 2007-08 a survey was conducted on 10.08.2006. The assessee subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r survey proceedings? (III) Whether the ITAT erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty on grounds that there was no addition to the income returned ignoring the fact that the income shown in the returned income is the outcome of unexplained income detected during the survey proceedings? (IV) Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty when there was a clear cut case of concealment amounting to ₹ 97,98,465/- which was incurred in repair and renovation and which was also accepted by the Chairman who had stated that this was incurred out of cash donations received from various persons? The effect of all of them is virtually the same as to whether the Tribunal is justified in deleting the penalty made und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 322 ITR 158 wherein it has been held that if no information given in the return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate and the full particulars are disclosed, the assessee cannot be held guilty for the purposes of most punishment under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We do not find that in view of the above ratio as laid down by the Supreme Court the assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars or non-disclosure of the relevant particulars for the purposes of assesment. Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal is justified in law on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the penalty made under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act even though the disclosure of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- was made by the assessee subsequent to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
