TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In the light of the law laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of Suraj Bhan [2006 (4) TMI 107 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ] has held that penalty levied is not justified because there was no concealment of income nor furnishing any inaccurate particulars thereof. The facts of the case in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable and will not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. On due consideration of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that learned ITAT has not appreciated the evidence of the AO and the order passed by the Appellate Authority. In the case in hand, the return was revised much prior to the date of issuance of notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.11.2010 and in the statement recorded during survey, in reply of Query No.56, Shri Gurjeet Singh Chhabra disclosed unaccounted income of ₹ 2.00 crore in the name of himself and his wife. Thereafter, on 11.02.2011, a search took place at the premises of Transword Furtichem Group and certain papers relating to assessee were found. On 14.04.2012, the assessee revised the return for AY 2010-11 in which additional income from long term capital gain of ₹ 4,18,79,397/- and short term capital gain of ₹ 72,78,532/- was shown. 4. According to the assessee, such capital gain was not offered in original return because land at Survey Nos.278 and 279 at Village Nipania ad-measuring 8293 sq. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erm capital gains) and on 07.04.2010 (for short term capital gains) and due date for filing of income tax return for FY 2011-12 was October, 2011, yet such income from capital gains was neither shown in the return for FY 2010-11 nor shown in FY 2011-12 and, therefore, it is clear that such income was meant to be concealed. The revised return filed by the assessee will not save the assessee from consequences of intentional filing of false or incorrect returns for FY 2010-11 and by affirming the penalty, dismissed the appeal. 6. Learned Appellate Tribunal considering the fact that notice under Section 153-C of the Act was issued on 04.01.2013 and in compliance thereof, the assessee filed the return of income on 19.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is difficult to see any infirmity in the decision of the learned ITAT in the present case. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Thus, Explanation-5 cannot assist the claim of the revenue in the present case for the relevant assessment years under consideration before this Court for the simple reason that for the relevant assessment years, 2005-06 2006-07, no material was recovered during the search. Rather, the assessee added ₹ 21,65,932/- in the return filed pursuant to notice under section 153A. That amount was not relatable to any sum recovered or article seized. Therefore, the question of adding or not adding amounts after the search ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi High Court in the case of Principal of CIT-19 vs. Niraj Jindal (supra) and Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suraj Bhan (supra ), learned ITAT has held that penalty levied is not justified because there was no concealment of income nor furnishing any inaccurate particulars thereof. The facts of the case in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable and will not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 10. On due consideration of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that learned ITAT has not appreciated the evidence of the Assessing Officer and the order passed by the Appellate Authority. In the case in hand, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
