TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1881X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded u/s. 133A on 21.04.2010. The returned income was accepted as such after making a minor addition on account of low G.P. rate. Notice u/s. 148 is dated 01.03.2013. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has included certain income in the return filed pursuance to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Moreover, the assessee did not file any fresh return but instead stated that the return alread ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Both these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. We will first take up in ITA No. 2221/Ahd/2015 pertaining to A.Y. 2010- 11. 3. The assessee is aggrieved by the levy of penalty of ₹ 6,34,184/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The roots for the levy of penalty lie in the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount disclosed by Shri Pranshankar Sompural in his statement recorded at the time of survey operations. In its reply, the assessee stated that it has offered the disclosed amount in its return of income and the returned income has been assessed as such. Therefore, there is no concealment of any income, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act should be levied. 6. The contention of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n income in the return filed pursuance to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Moreover, the assessee did not file any fresh return but instead stated that the return already filed should be treated as filed in pursuance to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 8. In our understanding of the facts mentioned hereinabove, we do not find this to be a fit case for the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
