9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-3, Noida dated 16.01.2024 for the AY 2016-17 in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 6200/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that there was search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act on 16.06.2017 in the premises of the assessee. The assessment u/s 143(3)/153A was completed on 21.12.2019 accepting the income of Rs. 12, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that the assessee contended that the difference in income declared in the return filed u/s 153A when compared with the original return is only on account of difference in claim made u/s 80C of the Act. Ld. Counsel submits that the income declared by the assessee in response to 153A has been accepted by the Assessing Officer and no addition was made on account of such material and therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f slight mistake in claiming the deduction u/s 80C of the Act. This contention of the assessee was completely overlooked by the authorities below. In my opinion this is not fit case of levy of penalty as there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income was established. At best it is only a mere change of opinion and not a case of concealment of income or furnish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee consciously intended to hide his income. When an assessee has filed revised returns after a search has been conducted, and such revised returns have been accepted by the Assessing Officer, merely by virtue of the fact that such return showed a higher income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be automatically imposed. Considering that the non obstante clause u/s 153A excludes the applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
