Mr. Chittaranjan Trimbak Gaikwad, Pune vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 759/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11
Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra
For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)
…0 ITR 144,CIT Vs Dr. R.C. Gupta & Co. (Raj) 122 ITR 567, Union Engineering Co. Vs CIT (Ker) 122 ITR 719,ITO Vs Leela Mammen (ITAT, Cochin) 63 TTJ 252, CIT Vs P.B. Shah & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (Cal) 113 ITR 587,ACIT Vs S.M. Kannappa Automobiles (P) Ltd. (ITAT, Bang) 72 ITD 474. In all cases the gist is like this "Simply because assessee agreed to addition of concealed income after detection thereof and filed return in response to enquiry conducted by department, assessee cannot escape from penalty u/s 271(1)(c)' Moreover, The Supreme court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax 358 ITR 593 has cl…