TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar issued by CBDT. The AO did not allow the benefit of Amnesty Scheme by holding that the filing of the revised return was after search conducted at the premises of M/s Shroff. The assessees have not filed the revised return suo motu, therefore, the ITO has imposed the penalty under ss. 271(1)(c) and 273(1)(b) for concealment of the income and not paid the advance taxes. 3. The CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the AO. Therefore, being aggrieved by this order, assessees are in appeal before us. 4. The learned counsel submitted that the assessees are as individuals and partners in the firm of M/s Patel Brothers. Smt. Chandrikaben and her husband Sharadbhai Patel had in beginning of the year 1985 a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 kept with them. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r cent of the gift so received by their children as their income and filed the revised return under Amnesty Scheme as per Circular No. 451. The learned counsel further submitted that the assessees had voluntarily filed the revised return and made full disclosure of their income and full taxes thereon paid within the time-limit prescribed. The learned counsel submitted the return filed by the assessees were accepted in total and there was no variation in the income assessed by the ITO nor there was either any inquiry or findings adverse to the return filed so. The learned counsel has filed the copy of the judgment of CIT vs. Labhubhai Bhimjibhai Patel (IT Appeal No. 260/1998) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has, in similar facts of this case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we delete the penalty. Moreover, in the instant case, there was no allegation that the disclosure made by the assessees in the return of income was not full and true. There was no finding that disclosure was not made in good faith during the course of search operation made in the premises of M/s Shroff. Nothing incriminating was found against the assessees, therefore, we are of the view that the ITO was not justified in giving rise to the presumption that the assessees have filed the revised return after the search conducted at the premises of M/s Shroff. 7. Looking to the facts of the case, we are of the view that the CIT(A) was not justified in imposing the penalty. Therefore, we set aside the order of the CIT(A). 8. In the result, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
