9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. The only issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a partnership firm. During the year under consideration a survey under section 133A dated 25-03-2014 was carried out in case of "Mangala Group" in which assessee firm was also covered. During the survey proceeding one of the partner of the assessee firm namely Shri Manish K Patel while recording statement under section 131(1A) admitted to offer an undisclosed income of Rs. 10 Crores. In Consequence the assessee firm in its return of income disclosed the amount of undisclosed income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmission is considered. The undisputed fact of the present case are that during the course of survey proceedings, partner of the appellant firm has admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 10 crore for the still ongoing FY (rt AY 2014-15) and such amount was duly offered as income in return of income filed for current assessment year 2014-15. It is observed that on the date of survey proceedings, due date of filing return of income has not expired and income shown in original income is assessed by AO as such in assessment order passed u/s 143(3). The AO has not made any addition in assessment proceedings and has accepted the fact that appellant has provided necessary explanation as were called in assessment proceedings. The AO has levied penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them. 6. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties and perused the material available on records. The fact of the case has already been elaborated in the previous paragraph. Hence we are not inclined to repeat the same for the sake of brevity. The only issue for our adjudication is that whether the learned CIT (A) was justified in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the given facts and circumstances. Before going into the matter on hand we think appropriate to analyze the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act which reads as under: 79271. (1) If the 80[Assessing] Officer or the 81[***] 82[Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome have been disclosed by him], then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. 7. On perusal of the above provision what is inferred is that, if the AO or the learned CIT (A) during any proceedings under this Act is satisfied that the assessee has concealed or furnish inaccurate particular of income then he/she may impose penalty. The provision of explanation-1 attached to the section also cover the situation; (a) where the assessee failed to offer an explanation or explanation offered found to be false with regard to any facts or material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
