Case Law Details
Pooja Upadhyay Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
It is not in dispute that in the present case, notice u/s 133(6) was issued on 08.03.2019 immediately thereafter the assessee voluntarily deposited the tax along with the computation of income in response to the said notice vide letter dated 25.03.2019. It only after this the AO issued notice u/s 148 (i.e. on 30.03.2019). The assessee on his own after receiving notice u/s 148 voluntarily declared the income in ROI and paid taxes of thereon i.e. even before providing reason recorded for the escapement of income. The aforesaid explanation given by the assessee through ROI was neither rejected nor it was held to be mala fide by the AO and once the AO had failed to take any objection in the matter, the offer so made came from the assessee on its own and was a voluntary offer made i.e. without any detection and this voluntary action of the assessee cannot be considered as equivalent to providing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing the particulars of Income. The similar view is taken the jurisdictional high court in the case of CIT vs. Pushpendra Surana (2014) 264 CTR 0204 (Raj) wherein it was held that:
“6. In our considered view, the CIT (Appeals) and so also the Income Tax Appellate Authority both have considered the matter, in detail, and finally arrived at a conclusion that the income declared by the assessee from the long term capital gain by selling agricultural land, disclosed by the assessee in his revised return of Income was accepted by the Assessing Authority and there was no material available on record by which there could be an inference drawn by the authority that it was a deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee and it could not be considered that there was an inaccurate particulars of income that was made the basis for inflicting penalty upon the assessee in exercise of powers conferred u/S.271(1)(c) of the Act.
7. We do not find any substance in the submissions made by counsel for appellant and apart from that even if there appears some substance, this court has a limited scope in the instant appeal u/S.260A of the Act, to examine if a substantial question of law arises for consideration.
8. Taking note of the submissions and the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in our considered view, no substantial question of law arises in the instant appeal which may require consideration.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
