The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 8444 (Pune-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 271(1)(c)

Where at the time of levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) AO had recorded his satisfaction at the time of framing original assessment order based on the original return filed by assessee under section 139(1), however, while survey was conducted which resulted in levy of penalty, no separate satisfaction was recorded by the AO before initiation of penalty proceedings, therefore no penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be levied.

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Penalty is leviable either for 'concealment of income' or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' - Assessee filing revised return disclosed his entire income in totality and have paid taxes -

Assessee was engaged in business of transport and cargo mover. During the course of survey some incriminating documents were found suggesting some illegal payments to RTO Officers. Assessee filed a revised return of income declaring total income which included admitted inadmissible expenditure. AO proceeded to finalize the assessment proceeding and since assessee had already disallowed the claim of illegal payments to RTO Officers and others, no separate addition was made on this count. But, AO had recorded his satisfaction that assessee had concealed particulars of income at the time of filing original return under section 139(1) and hence, AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Held: Revised return was accepted and taxes paid accordingly. No further addition was made by AO in the case of assessee. While levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) AO had recorded his satisfaction at the time of framing original assessment order based on the original return filed by assessee under section 139(1). That however, while survey was conducted which resulted in levy of penalty, during that time no separate satisfaction was recorded by the AO before initiation of penalty proceedings. It was not a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) and was directed to be deleted.

REFERRED : CIT v. Bhimji Bhanjee & Co. (1984) 146 ITR 145 (Bom) : 1984 TaxPub(DT) 0270 (Bom-HC) Ashok S. Agarwal v. Dy. CIT [ITA No. 1227/PUN/2016, dt. 5-6-2018] Dilip Yeshwant Oak v. ACIT (2011) 10 Taxmann.com 264 (Pune) : 2011 TaxPub(DT) 1125 (Pune-Trib)

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour

A.Y. :


INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 271(1)(c)

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT