Case Law Details
CIT Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals (Delhi High Court) Though it is possible that but for detection in the survey, the assessee might not have offered the income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can only be levied if “in the course of proceedings” the AO is satisfied that there is “concealment” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars“. The words “in the course of proceedings” mean the assessment proceedings because there is no question of the satisfaction of the AO in survey proceedings. Further, the question whether there is “concealment” or “inaccurate particulars” has to be determined with reference to the return of income. As the assessee had offered the detected income in the return, there was neither concealment nor the furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
REPORT ABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ITA No. 1058 of 2009
RESERVED ON: MARCH 01, 2011 PRONOUNCED On: APRIL 08, 2011
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
