TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven filed during penalty proceedings also. Therefore in absence of any plausible explanation the Assessee is found to have concealed the particulars of his income as he has failed to offer explanation which he is not able to substantiate and further has failed to prove that such explanation is bonafide and that the relevant and material facts relating to the computation of income. In view of these facts the provision of section 271(1)(c) gets attracted correctly. See MAK DATA P. LTD.case [2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] - decided against assessee. - ITA No. 1& 2/Chd/2016 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2016 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini And Shri Prashant Maharishi, JJ. Assessee by: Sh. Permil Goel, Adv Revenue by: Sh. Manjit Singh, DR ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd behalf of those persons the assessee has deposited cash into the bank accounts. He submitted that the Assessee has furnished some names of customers from whom full cash payment was received and on whose behalf the demand draft were issued. Therefore, he submitted that he has discharged his onus cast upon him and therefore the penalty cannot be levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He further submitted that the notice dated 27.10.2009 also did not specify whether the Assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. He further referred to his written submission at Page 8 wherein, he submitted that he was just earning commission income and such income has already been offered for income tax. In vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation the Assessee is found to have concealed the particulars of his income as he has failed to offer explanation which he is not able to substantiate and further has failed to prove that such explanation is bonafide and that the relevant and material facts relating to the computation of income. In view of these facts the provision of section 271(1)(c) gets attracted. Hon. Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Mak data (india) Pvt Ltd (358 ITR 593 ) has held as under:- 9. We are of the view that the surrender of income in this case is not voluntary in the sense that the offer of surrender was made in view of detection made by the AO in the search conducted in the sister concern of the assessee. In that situation, it cannot be said that the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(l)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369 and CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589. [underline Supplied by us] 6. In view of the above facts and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Mak Data India ( P ) Ltd [supra] we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of ₹ 658586/-. 7. In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee for the Assessment year 2006-07 is dismissed. 8. Now we come to the the appeal for the Assessment year 2007-08 in ITA N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
