ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR vs. ABHIJIT PURUSHOTTAM PATHAK, AHMEDNAGAR

This appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 28-03-2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune [„CIT(A)‟] for assessment year 2014-15.

We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Thus, the assessee called absent and set ex-parte. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal by hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material available on record.

The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Heard ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is an individual and a doctor by profession. Originally the assessee filed return of income declaring a total income at Rs.3,27,47,940/- on 28-11-2014. Thereafter, a survey was conducted u/s. 133A of the Act on 15-01-2015. In the said survey, the assessee stated to have been admitted additional income of Rs.1,50,08,745/-. In view of the same he filed revised return of income on 09-02-2015 by declaring the said additional income in the revised return of income showing total income at Rs.4,78,38,685/- (Rs.3,27,47,940/- + Rs.1,50,08,745/-). The AO accepted the said revised return of income determining the total income at Rs.4,78,38,685/- without any disallowance thereon. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and levied penalty of Rs.51,01,472/- being minimum penalty @ 100%. The CIT(A) by placing reliance of the orders of ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Vasavi Shelters Vs. ITO reported in 141 ITD 590, ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Vipul Life Sciences Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 68 SOT 321 and also decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs. S.S.M. Ahmed Hussain reported in 85 taxmann.com 351 (Mad.) on identical issues vide Para Nos. 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4, respectively in the impugned order held when assessment is completed on the basis of income declared which is inclusive of additional income declared in the course of survey without making any addition thereon, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income is not warranted. The ld. DR did not dispute that the AO completed assessment on the basis of return of income which is inclusive of the additional income said to have been offered to tax during the course of survey u/s. 133A of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is justified. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.