DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3, PUNE vs. M/S. GOKHALE JOSHI ASSOCIATES, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1047/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 January 2022AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty, holding that no penalty is leviable when the AO accepts the return of income including the admitted additional income. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

During a survey, the assessee firm admitted unaccounted income and offered it for taxation, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the assessment. The AO, however, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when undisclosed income is admitted during survey and accepted by the AO without making any addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 133A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

1.

This appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 22-03-2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Pune [„CIT(A)‟] for assessment year 2013-14.

2.

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.

3.

The Revenue raised three grounds of appeal amongst which 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.

4. Heard ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is a firm engaged in the construction business as promoters and builders. A survey was conducted u/s. 133A of the Act in assessee‟s group on 11-10-2012. The assessee offered Rs.1,94,00,000/- as unaccounted money and disclosed the said income by adding it to the regular income. Accordingly, the assessee filed return of income declaring a total income of Rs.2,56,00,000/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act accepting the same. At the same time, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act under the charge of concealment of income and imposed penalty of Rs.59,94,600/- in respect of the amount which was admitted during the course of survey. The CIT(A) vide Para No. 3.4 of the impugned order held when return of income including the admitted unaccounted additional income accepted by the AO, no penalty lies. It is a settled principle when the AO accepts return of income making no addition, no penalty lies in such circumstances. We find the CIT(A) by placing reliance on judicial pronouncements rightly cancelled the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) 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.

5.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th January, 2022.

Sd/- Sd/- (R.S. Syal) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 20th January, 2022. रवव आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A)-3, Pune 4. The Pr. CIT-2, Pune ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “ए” बेंच, 5. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गार्ड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. //सत्यावऩत प्रतत// True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

वररष्ठ तनजी सधचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →