Asstt. CIT v. Jupiter Distiller

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2012 TaxPub(DT) 0895 (Ahd-Trib) : (2012) 143 TTJ 0745 : (2012) 066 DTR 0121 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Penalty under section 271(1)(c)--ConcealmentImmunity under Explanation 5--In the present case the assessee had surrendered a whopping sum of Rs. 1.6 crores during the course of survey/search and seizure operation. While furnishing its return of income, before issuing notice under section 153C the appellant had declared its income including the amount so surrendered. However, while framing the assessment order, the AO initiated penal proceedings on the premise that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars by suppressing and under-reporting the investment in bank accounts and on account of income deemed to have accrued to it. *Held:* Since assessee had added additional income of Rs. 1.60 croes in its computation of income. It is pertinent to mention here that the AO in his assessment order had unwittingly mentioned that a notice under section 153C was served on the assessee on 27-4-2006, whereas a retrn of income delcaring a total income of nil was filed on 23-3-2006 the xplanation 5 of section 271(1)(c) attracted and no penalty was leviable. Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 271(1)(c), Explanation 5 IN THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD 'B' BENCH BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. & A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M. Asstt. CIT v. Jupiter Distillery ITA No. 1555/Ahd/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 16 December, 2011 Samir Tekriwal, for the Appellant by : K. Gopal, for the Respondent by : ORDER *A. Mohan Alankamony, A.M.* This appeal is filed by the assessee (sic--Revenue) aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. Commissioner (Appeals)-II/CC. 4/1/2008-09 dated 3-2-2009 for the assessment year 2005-06 passed under section 250 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Though the Revenue has raised five grounds, the prime grievance of it being 'that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 49.07 lakhs by ignoring the provisions of Explanation 4(a) below section 271(1)(c) of the Act.' SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2012 TaxPub(DT) 0895 (Ahd-Trib) : (2012) 143 TTJ 0745 : (2012) 066 DTR 0121

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Penalty under section 271(1)(c)--ConcealmentImmunity under Explanation 5--In the present case the assessee had surrendered a whopping sum of Rs. 1.6 crores during the course of survey/search and seizure operation. While furnishing its return of income, before issuing notice under section 153C the appellant had declared its income including the amount so surrendered. However, while framing the assessment order, the AO initiated penal proceedings on the premise that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars by suppressing and under-reporting the investment in bank accounts and on account of income deemed to have accrued to it. Held: Since assessee had added additional income of Rs. 1.60 croes in its computation of income. It is pertinent to mention here that the AO in his assessment order had unwittingly mentioned that a notice under section 153C was served on the assessee on 27-4-2006, whereas a retrn of income delcaring a total income of nil was filed on 23-3-2006 the xplanation 5 of section 271(1)(c) attracted and no penalty was leviable.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 271(1)(c), Explanation 5

IN THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD 'B' BENCH

BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. & A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M.

Asstt. CIT v. Jupiter Distillery

ITA No. 1555/Ahd/2009

A.Y. 2005-06

16 December, 2011

Samir Tekriwal, for the Appellant by :

K. Gopal, for the Respondent by :

ORDER

A. Mohan Alankamony, A.M.

This appeal is filed by the assessee (sic--Revenue) aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. Commissioner (Appeals)-II/CC. 4/1/2008-09 dated 3-2-2009 for the assessment year 2005-06 passed under section 250 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Though the Revenue has raised five grounds, the prime grievance of it being

'that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 49.07 lakhs by ignoring the provisions of Explanation 4(a) below section 271(1)(c) of the Act.'