TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revised return of income to complete the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147. We are inclined to note that the assessee filed the revised return of income which was duly accepted by the AO. From the above observations, it is clear that the assessee had neither concealed the particulars of the income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Hence, this is not a fit case to attract penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA No. 1401/Hyd/2014 - - - Dated:- 4-12-2015 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Hari Agarwal. For the Revenue : Shri B. Kurmi Naidu. ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: This appeal is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: 6. In this case, it can be clearly held that the appellant concealed the bogus purchase of Rs. 5,92,973 and offered the same in the revised return of income only subsequent to detect ion of the same by the department during the scrutiny proceedings for the AY 2008-09. 6.1 For my above observations, I do not find any infirmity in the act ion of the AO levying penalty of Rs. 1,99,600, and hence, I confirm the same. 5. The ld. AR prayed to file additional grounds of appeal. On verification, it was noticed that the additional grounds were not relating to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was received from Jaipur Investigation Wing that the assessee had involved in purchase of Gems from Vijay Gems. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee had accepted the addition only to buy peace and avoid litigation. 9. Ld. AR submitted, penalty cannot be levied because assessee accepted the additional income to avoid unnecessary litigation by relying on the decision in case of ACIT Vs. Ashok Rajnath (supra). In the said case, the assessee filed voluntarily the revised return of income beyond the time prescribed u/s 139(5) of the Act. The AO accepted the revised return and also levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). As far as other case of ACIT Vs. Prem Chand Garg is concerned, this is in relation to the proceedings u/s 153. Notice was issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
