ITO, THENI vs. R.ALAGESAN, THENI

This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Madurai, dated 25.11.2014 and pertains to assessment year 2011-12, confirming 1961 (in short 'the Act').

No one appeared for the assessee inspite of service of notice by RPAD. The registry has placed on record the postal acknowledgement as proof of service of notice to the assessee.

Shri A.V. Sreekanth, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee has not filed the return of income for the assessment year 2011-12. There was a search in the premises of the assessee under Section 133A of the Act. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that the assessee engaged himself in the business of real estate for the past ten years. The assessee’s wife Smt. S.

We have heard the submission of the Ld. D.R. and perused the material available on record. No doubt, the assessee had not filed the return of income before the date of search. But, after the date of search, the assessee filed the return of income which was within the time limit provided under Section 139(4) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) found that the time limit to file the return of income under Section 139(4) of the Act was available upto 31.03.2012 for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, the return filed by the assessee was within the time limit provided under the Act. When the assessee had filed the return of income within the time limit provided under Section 139(4) of the Act, even though after the survey under Section 133A of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that it cannot be construed as the return was not filed. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied only if the assessee concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In this case, the 4 return was filed within the time limit provided under Section 139(4) of the Act and the declared income was accepted by the Assessing Officer without any further addition. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee concealed any part of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. We find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(Appeals). Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is confirmed.