With due respect it is stated that assessment u/s 143(3)/ 147 was decided in respect of the assessee on 23.12.2019.
In this regard it is stated that the assessee has filed his original return for The A.Y. 2012-13 but later on he filed his return for the same year in Response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act vide e-filing acknowledgement no. XX807XX602010XX dated 20/10/2019 and the assessment of the assessee u/s 143(3)/147 has been done on the basis of return filed in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act . The assessment of the assessee has been done with total income of Rs.401020.00. The return filed u/s 139 of the Act on 29/03/2013 has lost its sanctity when the same return has been filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act with total income of Rs.401020.00 which includes income of Rs.148,000/- shown in the original return and return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 has been fully scrutinized by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings . The assessment has been made u/s 143(3)/147 without any addition which clearly shows that assessee has declared to the ITD his true income when he filed his ROI in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. No addition to the income has been made by AO which clearly shows no concealment and no inaccurate particulars on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has relied on the following judgment.
“Sale consideration offered for tax on receipt of notice u/s. 148 to buy peace of mind. Not proved by department that explanation of assessee was not bona fide Suresh Chandra Mittal relied SLP of dept dismissed In the case of CIT V/s.
1. Rajiv Garg
2. Siya Ram Garg
3. Sanjay Garg
4. Sushil Kumar Garg
reported in 313 ITR 256 P & H .Revised return was filed on receipt of notice u/s. 148 and the entire sale consideration on sale of shares was offered for tax to buy peace of mind and to avoid litigation and also to save from penalty. No finding was recorded in the assessment order that there was concealment of income. The additional income was offered in good faith. The revised return was regularized by the revenue. It was not proved by the department that, the explanation of the assessee was not bona fide. The penalty levied was cancelled. The court relied on the judgment of Suresh chandra Mittal 251 ITR 9 S.C. * SLP of the department in this case was dismissed by the Supreme Court 313 ITR 29 News from Supreme Court.”
In the case of the assessee at present no finding was recorded in the assessment order that there was concealment of income.The assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of its income.True income of the assesseee was declared in the return filed by the assessee after issue of the notice u/ s 148 of the act . And the case of the assessee was made u/s 143(3) of the act on the same returned income.
Hence the AO is requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(C ) of the Act , 1961 as the assessee is innocent , Under bonafide belief he filed his original return but filed ROI later on with accurate particulars and accurate income and same has been accepted by the Assessing officer in his assessment order for the same year . Hence you are requested to drop the notice issued to the assessee u/s 274 read with section 271(1))c) of the Act, 1961 Dt. 23.12.2019