9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [for short "AO"] dt.28/06/2018 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year [for short "AY"] 2015-16. 2. The extant appeal is to address sole dispute over applicability of 271(1)(c) penal provision, where the income is assessed on the basis of material impounded in a survey action u/s 133A, in variation to original return filed. 3. Before proceeding for adjudication, it is apropos to reproduce the grounds raised by the appellant, such as; "1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.77,00,000/- in respect of addition of Rs.2,55,12,629/- made by the A.O. towards undisclosed business income on the ground that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income without appreciating that no such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the impounded material inter-alia copies of sales & purchases of land, bank account statements, cash & cheque receipts, development charges etc., the subsisting limited scrutiny was converted into complete scrutiny upon the due approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune [for short "PCIT"] and the assessments u/s 143(3) was finally culminated at Rs.2,91,28,580/- with an addition of Rs.2,55,12,629/- on account of undisclosed business income and Rs.4,67,600/- u/s 43CA of the Act, and followed by consequential penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealment the particulars of income in relation to undisclosed business income brought to tax. 4.2 Witnessing that, the aforesaid quantum order was remained unchallen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed that, imposition of penalty suffers from the basis of estimated business income, which lacks the accuracy, though was admitted on oath by the appellant and therefore penalty deserves to be deleted. Adverting to the statements recorded on oath u/s 131(1) and declaration furnished with respect to re-computation of income, records etc., it is contended that, the disclosed additional business income or profit was estimated @25% on the business receipts for the purpose of assessment, hence the penalty could not be imposed for the solitary reason that, the revised computation of income was accepted without variation. Learned departmental representative [for short "DR"] entrusting culmination of assessment in the light of impounded material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced on records and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of settled legal position and the case laws relied upon by the appellant assessee as well the respondent revenue. 7. Ground number 1 is general and ground number 2 & 3 alleged against levy of penalty for estimated business income, in omnibus, the only ground to adjudicate is the applicability of 271(1)(c) penal provision for concealing the particulars of income, and to deal therewith, it is appropriate to quote the relevant text of penal provision first; 271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1) If the [Assessing] Officer or the [Commissioner (Appeals)] [or the Commissioner] in the course of any proceedings under this Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eed is good and substantive to hold as such. 9. Glaringly, the appellant did not file any revised returnduring the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, but mere a revised computation of income incorporating the business profit earned at certain percentage of business receipts deciphered out of bank account statements, bank receipts, cash receipts, development charges received and transaction of sales & purchases of lands, etc., which formed absolute basis for assessment and consequential imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealing the particulars of income and when this fact was brought to the notice of the assessee during the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee offered to pay tax on the sum without answeri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness income upon the survey action in the light of impounded material spoke loudly about the conduct of the assessee, which could not be said to be anything else than disingenuous and thus filing of said recomputation of income did not obliterate the fact of the earlier act of concealment of particulars with a view to suppress the income and therefore was liable to penal action as contemplated in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and we note that the tax authorities below ceased such finding adverse to the appellant, and is not shown to be perverse or arbitrary in any manner warranting interference, ergo we hold that, the Ld. AO was justified in levying the minimum penalty, and we see that, our view has been rightly fortified by the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
