SUYESH IRON & STEEL PVT.LTD,SANGLI vs. ITO CIRCLE-1, SANGLI

There was a delay of 65 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. We have perused the affidavit and convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay. Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. No assessee is going to gain by filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, delay condoned.

The Ld. AR vehemently submitted that the assessee offered the undisclosed income by filing revised return. Hence, there is no concealment of income. The Ld. AR relied on the following decisions :

The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee had filed revised return of income only after survey. In this case in the original return of income, the assessee had not disclosed the correct figures of stock. The discrepancy in the stock was found during survey. During survey the assessee accepted the discrepancy and offered the income of Rs.1,25,93,425/- for AY 2016-17 on account of discrepancy in stock. This explains that initially the assessee had concealed the income. The Ld. DR filed paper book and relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sangmeshwara Associates, (2012) 345 ITR 396 (Kar.) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jyoti Laxman Konkar Vs. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 163 (Bombay).

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, admittedly, assessee had filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring total income at Rs.1,02,70,367/-. There was a survey on 09.08.2017 in the case of the assessee. Discrepancies were found in the stock. The assessee admitted

However, it is a fact that the assessee had not disclosed correct income in the original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. In this context we find support from the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jyoti Laxman Konkar (supra) held as under : Quote, “In our view, the Assessing Officer as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the assessee had filed the initial return dishonestly with a view to conceal the income and the revised return was filed out of compulsion, i.e., after having found that the assessee had concealed the income and filed a false return with a view to avoid tax liability, in our view, no substantial question/s of law arises in this case either in the manner formulated on behalf of the assessee in the memorandum of appeal or otherwise. The Commissioner of Income-tax allowed the appeal of the assessee by misapplying the said decision of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had no relevance to the fact situation prevailing in the case at hand, Whether there is concealment of income or not has to be decided with reference to the facts of a given case and the lact-finding authorities under the Act having come to the conclusion that in the facts of the case, the assessee had concealed the income initially with a view to avoid the payment of tax, we are of the view that no substantial question of law is involved in this case requiring the admission of the appeal. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed.”Unquote.

Similarly, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sangmeshwara Associates (supra) has held as under : Quote, “36. In a situation where the assessee admits that a return which had been filed earlier did not disclose a true or full income, which is the case in the present situation, does not warrant proof or

In this case, the AR also relied on the decision of Tribunal. On carefully considering the decision relied by the Ld. AR, it is observed that the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jyoti Laxman Konkar (supra) was not considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, those decisions relied by the Ld. AR are not applicable in this case. The decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court is binding on this Tribunal. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (supra), we uphold the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.