Case Law Details
Balee Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
We find that on perusal of page 10 read with page 13 of the factual paper book filed by the assessee comprising of the profit and loss account for the year ended 31/03/2009 and the schedule for the other income thereon, the sum of Rs.3 Crores has been disclosed by the assessee exclusively as income declared under survey under the head ‘other income’. This itself goes to prove that the assessee had duly recorded that income offered in the survey in its books of accounts. We find that this sum of Rs 3 crores was also duly offered to tax by the assessee in the return of income filed. Moreover, we find that similar issue had been the subject matter of adjudication by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals reported in 335 ITR 259 (Del) wherein it was held that for the purpose of imposing penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee has to be in the income tax return filed by the assessee. The facts before the Delhi High Court was that certain income was surrendered by the assessee during survey and the same was shown by it in regular income tax return which was filed within the prescribed time. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that no penalty would be exigible in such scenario. The facts of the case before us are exactly similar and identical to the facts before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. In the instant case also there is no dispute that assessee had indeed disclosed Rs.3 Crores additional income in the income tax return filed by it.
We also find similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Shree Sai Developers reported in 418 ITR 306. In the facts before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, a survey took place on 17/07/2012 wherein unaccounted income of Rs.78,50,000/- was declared during the survey of the assessee firm which was also subsequently included in the return of income filed by the assessee firm for the A.Y.2012-13.The assessment was completed accepting the returned income thereon. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that since there was no concealment in the return of income filed by the assessee which was ultimately accepted by the Revenue, there cannot be any levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we hold that no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) would be exigible thereof in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
This appeal in ITA No.7663/Mum/2013 for A.Y.2009-10 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-9/ITO-5(1)(2)/247/2013-14 dated 22/11/2013 (ld. CIT(A) in short) in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
