TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal is of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Assessing Officer for dropping the penalty proceeding initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is one of the possible views supported by the judgment of Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001 (6) TMI 63 - SUPREME Court). Therefore, it is not justified for the Administrative Commissioner to substitute his view by setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer dropping the penalty proceeding initiated. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the orders of the Commissioner. Accordingly the orders of the Administrative Commissioner passed under Section 263 of the Act are set aside and that of the Assessing Officer dropping the penalty proceeding are restored. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.2450/Chny/2016, ITA No.2451/Chny/2016, ITA No.2452/Chny/2016, ITA No.2386/Chny/2016, ITA No.2387/Chny/2016, ITA No.2388/Chny/2016, ITA No.2389/Chny/2016, ITA No.2390/Chny/2016, ITA No.2391/Chny/2016 And ITA No.2392/Chny/2016 - - - Dated:- 17-5-2018 - SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2393/Chny/2016, ITA No.2394/Chny/2016, ITA No.2395/Chny/2016, ITA No.2396/Chn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so filed revised return before initiating penalty proceeding disclosing all the jewellery and offered the same for taxation. According to the Ld. representative, the revised returns filed by all the assessees were accepted by the Assessing Officer and no addition was made. In those circumstances, the Assessing Officer, after considering the decision of Indore Bench of this Tribunal in Shri Radhey Shyam Sarda and Others v. ACIT 2012 (12 TMI 320) and the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9, found that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Accordingly, he dropped the penalty proceeding. 5. The Ld. representative for the assessee further submitted that the Administrative Commissioner in the guise of exercising his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, found that dropping the penalty proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. The Ld. representative further submitted that an authority under the Incometax Act, who initiates penalty proceeding, is not obliged to levy penalty when he is satisfied with the explanation of the assessee in the course of penalty proceeding. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. On the contrary, Smt. Ruby George, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessees filed revised return after the search, therefore, it cannot be considered to be a voluntary one. According to the Ld. D.R., excess jewellery was found in the search proceeding and it was contended before the Assessing Officer that the jewellery belonging to these assessees were given to M/s AMN Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. The source for acquisition of jewellery by these assessees are gifts received during the course of marriage and other occasions from the parents, relatives and friends. However, according to the Ld. D.R., they could not substantiate the claim before the Assessing Officer. Since the assessees have offered the cost of jewellery as income for taxation, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer found that there was concealment of income, hence, he initiated penalty proceeding by issuing show cause notice. In the course of penalty proceeding, according to the Ld. D.R., on the basis of the judgment of Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra), the Assessing Officer found that it is not a fit case for initiating any penalty. According to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such failure ; ( iii) in the cases referred to in clause (c) or clause (d), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed 1three times, the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his 4income or fringe benefits or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income or fringe benefits. 11. From the above, it is obvious that if the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner, in the course of any proceeding under the provisions of Income-tax Act, is satisfied that any person concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct such person shall pay penalty. Therefore, discretion was vested on the Assessing Officer to levy penalty in case the Assessing Officer is satisfied that there was concealment of income or the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. In the case before us, the assessees after the search proceeding in the case of AMN Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., filed their revised return a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
