SHRI DATTATRYA JAGANNATH AWARE,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

3. The only contention raised by the ld. AR, Shri Prasad S. Bhandari that there is no basis for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as the income declared in the revised return of income was accepted by the AO in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. In view of the same, let us examine the facts and circumstances of the case, at the outset, we note that the assessee originally e-filed return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 declaring a total income of Rs.8,65,780/- on 27- 09-2016. The respondent-revenue conducted a survey action in the case of assessee u/s. 133A of the Act on 27-09-2017. According to the AO, the assessee declared an additional income of Rs.2,06,48,600/- and included the same in the revised return of income which was filed on 31-03-2018. Under compulsory scrutiny proceedings, the AO issued notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. In response to the said notices, the assessee was represented through his authorized representative. The AO completed scrutiny proceedings and accepted the total income declared through revised return of income filed by the assessee without any variation and additions thereon. We note that the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground had no survey action carried out on the assessee, the assessee would not have bothered to disclose the amount of Rs.2,06,48,600/-. We note that the assessee by placing reliance on the various decisions contended that levy of penalty is not maintainable in view of acceptance of revised return of income, but however, the AO proceeded to levy of penalty of Rs.72,50,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. We note that the assessee reiterated the same submissions as made before the CIT(A) questioning the levy of penalty in the absence of any variation in the revised return of income. The CIT(A) discussed the said contention of the assessee along with various decisions from pages 12 to 14 of the impugned order, wherein, we note that the CIT(A) did not accept the submissions of the assessee and confirmed the order of AO. Before us, the ld. AR drew our attention to the order of this Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Chillers Pvt. Ltd. in & 595/PUN/2019 for A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13 vide order dated 23-08-2022, wherein this Tribunal by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals reported in 335 ITR 259 (Delhi) deleted the penalty therein by holding no concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is made out by the authorities as the assessee had made a complete disclosure in the revised return of income and offering the additional amount for the purpose of tax. We note that the facts and circumstances in the case of Kirloskar Chillers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are identical to the facts on hand which is not disputed by the ld. DR. In view of the same, we can safely conclude that the findings therein rendered by this Tribunal are applicable to the facts on hand, since, in the present case, the AO accepted the revised return of income without any variation, therefore, in our opinion, the penalty as confirmed by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi is not justified and it is deleted. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.