TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the purpose of tax. We are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Accordingly, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Thus, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed. - ITA No.1866/PUN/2019 - - - Dated:- 26-9-2022 - SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A M: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Pune. [ the CIT(A) ] dated 06.08.2019 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistered under the Indian Partnership Act. It is engaged in the business of promoters and builders. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed on 21.02.2014 declaring total income of Rs.2,69,01,320/-. It is significant to note that the survey operations u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) were conducted in the business premises of the respondent-assessee on 11.10.2012. During the course of survey operations, the respondent-assessee offered an undisclosed income of Rs.2.34 crores. Consequent to the disclosure of undisclosed income, the return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 was revised on 21.02.2014 and the said undisclosed income of Rs.2.34 crores was disclosed in the revised return of income filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals, 335 ITR 259 (Delhi), CIT vs. Mohan Das Hassa Nand, 141 ITR 203 (Delhi) and the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 358 ITR 593 (SC) held that the levy of penalty was not justified in view of the fact that the penalty has to be levied only with reference to the return of income filed by the assessee. Since the income disclosed during the course of survey operations was already included in the return of income, the question of levy of penalty does not arise. 5. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. The ld. CIT-DR submits that during the course of survey op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the return of income and offered the additional amount for the purpose of tax. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court (supra) are as under :- 15. It necessarily follows that concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by the assessee has to be in the income-tax return filed by it. There is sufficient indication of this in the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT v. Mohan Das Hassa Nand [1983] 141 ITR 203 / 13 Taxman 328 and in Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court has clinched this aspect, viz., the assessee can furnish the particulars of income in his return and everything would depend upon the income-tax return filed by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
