| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 3011 2010 SLD 3011 (2010) 329 ITR 330 |
Calcutta High Court
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Commissioner of Income Tax
v.
Suresh Chand Bansal
Law:
Section:
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income Where assessee had offered additional income following search and such income had been accepted in entirely without any attempt to obtain explanation of assessee, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable on assessee [Assessment years 1999-2000 to 2005-06] [In favour of assessee] CIT v. Suresh Chand Bansal [2009] 223 CTR (Cal.) 128 A return was filed by the assessee as per notice under section 153A issued by the Department. The assessee filed a return under section 153A showing income of Rs. 27,04,280 while in the revised return of income tax it had been shown as Rs. 3,00,278. The order was passed assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 30,04,280. Therefore, for such addition of Rs. 27,04,000 as undisclosed income, penalty was imposed under section 271(1)(c). The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty. He held that the offer of additional income and its acceptance in all the assessment years was a rough estimate; there was an offer of additional income and it was held to be a good offer. It was accepted in its entirety. Therefore, levy of penalty on such offer was not justified without detailed discussion of the documents and the explanation which compelled the offer of additional income. The Tribunal, considering the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroffv. Jt. CIT[2007] 291 ITR 519 . Held that the matter was covered under the said decision of the Supreme Court and did not call for interference. JUDGMENT The question in this matter arose is whether the implementation of the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 against the assessee is correct. 2. The facts of the case briefly are as follows : An order was passed under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. A return was filed by the assessee as per notice under s. 153A issued by the Revenue Department on 20th May, 2005 which was duly served upon the assessee on 24th May, 2005. The assessee filed a revised return under s. 153A showing income of Rs. 27,04,280 while in the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492