TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1085X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at there is no finding of the AO in the assessment order that assessee has concealed his income; rather Assessing Officer has accepted the returned income filed by assessee, as it is, (in response to notice u/s 147 of the Act). We note that in the case of CIT v. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty [ 1998 (6) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] has held that u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act the authority is given the discretion to levy a penalty if there is concealment of particulars of income and even as regards the quantum of the penalty there is a discretion. Of greater importance is the necessity for a definite finding that there is concealment, as without such a finding of concealment, there can be no question of imposing any penalty. In the assessee s case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore us is an individual and did not file return of income for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee`s case was re-opened u/s 147/148 of the Act, after recording the reasons. The assessee filed his return of income u/s 148 of the Act, on 23.04.2018, declaring total income of Rs. 3,67,500/-. The assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.ws.147 of the Act, on 19.12.2018, determining the total income of Rs. 3,67,500/- accepting the income declared in his return of income filed u/s 148 of the Act and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated on the income which was disclosed after detecting in the assessment proceedings. A notice 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act, was issued to the assessee on 19.12.2018, along with the assessment orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come filed u/s 148 of the Act. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated on the income which was disclosed after detecting in the assessment proceedings. A notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.ws. 274 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 19.12.2018. The assessee did not reply in response to penalty notice dated 19.12.2018. Further, a fresh opportunity was granted to the assessee vide letter dated 02.04.2019 requesting it to show cause as to why penalty should not be levied in assessee s case. The assessee did not file any reply in response to show cause notice. As per the assessment order, the assessee had voluntarily disclosed income of Rs. 3,67,500/- from business and profession in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not have paid the tax on the income concealed by him. Therefore, penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer should be confirmed. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant finding given in the order ld NFAC/Ld.CIT(A). We note that Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings on account of concealment of particulars of income to the tune of Rs. 3,67,500/-. However, in penalty proceeding, also the Assessing Officer levied the penalty on account of concealment of income. We note that Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee did not conceal the income and was in the bona fide believe that the said income, which was taxed u/s 147 of the Act, was not assessable under the Act. We note that there is no finding of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had concealed income with reference to return of income filed by him in response to notice u/s 148. Hon ble Supreme Court in Varkey Chacko v. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 885 has held that a penalty for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income can be imposed only when the assessing authority is satisfied that there has been such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. A penalty proceeding, therefore, can be initiated only after an assessment order has been made which finds such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty was permissible under the law on the date on which the offence of concealment of income was committed, that is to say, on the date of the offe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment. It is not the case of assessing officer that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been imposed on certain additions made to the returned income. Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/S S.A.S. Pharmaceuticals (supra) while deciding the issue levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in paragraph 15 has held as under: 15. It necessarily follows that concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee has to be in the income tax return filed by it. There is sufficient indication of this Court in the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I Vs Mohan Das Hassa Nand 141 ITR 203 and in Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd (supra), the Supreme court has clinched this aspect, viz., the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
