Survey Surrender Is Not Concealment in the Return: Penalty of ₹1.18 Crore u/s 271(1)(c) Deleted

DCIT Vs Rajendra Dagadu Gaikawad (ITAT Pune Bench)

Survey Surrender Is Not Concealment in the Return: Penalty of ₹1.18 Crore u/s 271(1)(c) Deleted

Summary:

Background

The assessee, proprietor of M/s Komal Properties, was engaged in the business of purchasing & selling land. A survey u/s 133A was conducted at his business premises on 05.02.2013. During the survey, the assessee declared additional income of ₹3,81,10,000.

Crucially, the survey occurred during the relevant previous year, before the statutory date for filing the return of income. When the assessee subsequently filed his original return on 30.09.2013, he included the entire surrendered amount & declared total income of ₹3,96,19,501.

The case was selected for scrutiny. During assessment, the AO noticed rental income of ₹2,40,000 credited to the assessee’s bank account but not offered to tax. After granting the statutory deduction of 30%, the AO added ₹1,68,000 & completed assessment u/s 143(3) at ₹3,97,87,501.

No addition was made in respect of the additional business income of ₹3.81 crore disclosed during the survey because that amount already formed part of the original return.

Penalty Despite Full Disclosure

The AO nevertheless initiated proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). According to the AO, the additional income had been disclosed only because of the survey. Had the Department not conducted the survey, the assessee might not have offered it to tax. The AO therefore treated the surrender as a case of concealment of income/furnishing inaccurate particulars.

Rejecting the assessee’s explanation that the income was offered to buy peace & avoid litigation, the AO levied the minimum penalty of ₹1,18,14,100, being 100% of the tax allegedly sought to be evaded.

The CIT(A) deleted the penalty. It noted that the assessee had included the complete surrendered amount in the original return, the AO had accepted that disclosure during assessment & no business-income addition corresponding to the surrender had been made. The Revenue carried the matter to the Tribunal.

Revenue Invokes MAK Data

The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) had overlooked the fact that the disclosure followed departmental detection during the survey. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s ruling in MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, 358 ITR 593, where it was held that a voluntary disclosure made merely to buy peace or avoid litigation does not automatically protect an assessee from penalty.

The assessee countered that concealment for purposes of s.271(1)(c) must ordinarily be examined with reference to the return of income. Since the survey took place before the return became due & the surrendered income was fully disclosed in the original return, there was neither concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars in that return.

Concealment Must Be Found in the Return

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, principally relying upon the Delhi High Court’s judgment in CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals, 199 Taxman 255.

The Tribunal explained that s.271(1)(c) is a penal provision & must be strictly construed. Penalty can be sustained only where the statutory conditions are clearly satisfied. Ordinarily, the document in which an assessee furnishes particulars of income is the return. Therefore, the existence of concealment or inaccurate particulars must be tested with reference to what was ultimately reported in that return.

Here, the assessee had not filed any return before the survey. When the occasion to file the return arose, he disclosed the entire additional income. The returned business income was accepted by the AO without any corresponding addition.

The mere possibility that the assessee might not have disclosed the income but for the survey could not substitute the statutory requirement of actual concealment. Penalty cannot rest upon presumptions, conjectures or hypothetical conduct.

Survey & Search Stand on Different Footings

The decision also highlights the legislative distinction between a survey u/s 133A & a search u/s 132. In search cases, provisions such as Explanations 5 & 5A to s.271(1)(c), as applicable, created specific deeming consequences in identified circumstances.

No comparable deeming fiction automatically treated income surrendered during a survey—before filing the return—as concealed income even where it was fully included in the original return. A penalty consequence designed for search proceedings could not simply be imported into a survey case.

Final Verdict

The Pune ITAT found the CIT(A)’s order to be reasoned & conclusive. The Revenue could not produce any fresh or cogent material to controvert the finding that the assessee had disclosed the complete amount in his original return.

Accordingly, deletion of the penalty of ₹1,18,14,100 u/s 271(1)(c) was upheld & the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.

Author’s Comments

The ruling draws an important line between detection of income during a survey & concealment of income in a return. A survey surrender may justify assessment of the income, but it does not, by itself, establish the ingredients necessary for penalty u/s 271(1)(c).

The timing of the survey was decisive. Since no return had been filed before the survey & the entire surrender was incorporated into the first valid return, the Revenue could point only to what the assessee might have done—not to any inaccurate particulars actually furnished.

The ruling does not establish a blanket immunity for every survey disclosure. Penalty exposure may remain where the surrender is omitted from the return, the return contains false particulars, the disclosure is made through a revised return after an earlier concealment, or the assessment uncovers income beyond what was offered. But where the original return truthfully reports the surrendered income, suspicion about the assessee’s untested intentions cannot replace proof of concealment.

Cases Discussed

• MAK Data P. Ltd. v. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC)
• CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 199 Taxman 255 (Delhi High Court)
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 3 SCR 510
• CIT, Delhi-I Vs. Mohan Das HassaNand 141 ITR 203

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ITAT, PUNE BENCH

The Revenue has filed the appeal against the order of NFAC/CIT(A) passed u/sec250 of the Income Tax Act emanating from the order passed u/sec271(1)(c) of the Act. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) NFAC, erred in deleting the penalty levied u/sec 271(1)(c) of the Act without considering the disclosure of income by the assessee only after the conduction of survey action u/sec 133A of the Act.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC erred in deleting the penalty without considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. which squarely covers the present case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT(358 ITR 593) has categorically held that disclosure ‘to buy peace’ or ‘ to avoid litigatin’ does not absolve the assessee from penalty.

3. The appellant craves for leave to add, alter, amend, delete etc., the above grounds of appeal in the interest of natural justice.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is proprietor of M/s. Komal properties and is engaged in the business of buying and selling of land. The assessee has filed return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.09.2013 disclosing a total income of Rs. 3,96,19,501/-. Whereas survey u/sec133A of the Act was carried out on the business premises of the assessee on 05.02.2013 and in the course of survey operations, the assessee has declared additional income of Rs. 3,81,10,000/- and was included in the return of income filed on 30.09.2013. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/sec 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act are issued to submit the details and information in support of return of income filed. Whereas, the Assessing(A.O) on perusal of information find that the assessee has received rental income of Rs. 2,40,000/- and was credited in the assessee’s bank account and was not offered to tax in the income tax computation filed and the A.O after allowing deduction @30% of the rental income, the balance amount of Rs.1,68,000/- was added to the returned income and assessed the total income of Rs.3,97,87,501/- and passed the order under Section 143(3) dated 30.03.2016. Subsequently, the AO has initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and issued notice, in compliance the assessee has filed the reply explaining that the assessee has offered the income in the return of income filed on 30.09.2013 and there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and paid the taxes on the assessed income. Whereas the A.O was not satisfied with the explanations and levied a penalty of Rs. 1,18,14,100/- and passed order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act dated 27.09.2016.

3. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the Revenue has filed an appeal with the CIT(A). Whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statements of facts, finding of the AO and submissions of the assessee and has deleted the penalty levied and allowed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue has filed appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal.

4. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR submitted that CIT(A) has erred in deleting the levy of penalty overlooking the factual aspects and ignoring the facts that the assessee has made disclosure of income in the return of income filed, subsequent to the survey operations u/sec 133A of the Act and the Ld.DR prayed for allowing the revenue appeal. Per contra, the Ld.AR supported the order of the CIT(A) and relied on the factual paper book and judicial decisions.

5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole matrix of the disputed issue envisaged by the The Ld.DR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the levy of penalty overlooking the findings of the Assessing Officer and the factual aspects that the assessee has offered the income only upon survey operations under Section 133A of the Act and the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had declared the income in the survey proceedings u/sec133A and has offered in the return of income filed on 30.09.2013 and paid the taxes and it is not disputed by the revenue authorities. We find the CIT(A) has considered submissions and caselaws filed by the assessee in support of the claim and deleted the penalty dealt at Page 4 Para 4 to 7 of the order read as under:

“4.“The reply of the assessee is duly considered and same is not acceptable because of following points:

i) As Assessee is claiming that the non- levy of penalty on ground that he made declaration at the time of survey to avoid litigation and to buy peace of mind. But, it is to state that Assessee has made disclosure of unaccounted income only after survey action u/s 133A of IT. act had been conducted in Assessee’s case. Had survey been not taken place in Assessee’s case then he would not have declared the income. Thus, it is clear case of concealment of income.

ii) Further, the penalty proceedings and Assessment proceedings are different. Even if we consider the search action u/s 132, the penalty is levied on undisclosed income u/s 271AAB of LT. Act for the specific previous year in which search was conducted. Thus, even in search cases, if undisclosed income in declared by Assessee as a result of search action then also penalty is levied on him. This clearly indicates that penalty is leviable in cases where undisclosed income is declared subsequent to department’s action. The Assessee’s case is clearly covered by same and thus, penalty is leviable in Assessee’s case.

iii) The Assessee has furnished the number of case laws in his support of claim but the same is not applicable in Assessee’s case as facts of Assessee’s case are different. The fact in Assessee’s case is that penalty is related to disclosure made during the course of survey The judgment of Hon’ble supreme court in case of Mak data (P) Ild vs CIT(2013) 38 taxmann.com 448 (SC) is clearly applicable in Assessee’s case wherein it is held that “The statute does not recognize those types of defenses under Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty”.

The same facts are seen in Assessee’s case as Assessee has made disclosure during the course of survey. So penalty is clearly attracted in Assessee’s case.

Thus, from above all discussion it is clear that no attempt has been made by the assessee, at the time of assessment as well as at the time of penalty proceedings to prove the genuineness of the transaction. No reasonable cause for such failure could be established by assessee. Thus, considering facts and circumstances of the case as discussed in preceding paras, I am satisfied that the assessee has fumished inaccurate particulars of income and rendered itself liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Therefore penalty of Rs. 1,18,14,100/-has been levied as per the calculations shown below:

5. ASSESSEE’S SUBMISSION

Notice u/s 250 were issued to the assessee on 03.02.2020, 23. 12. 2020. 10.10.2022, 31.05. 2023, 29.08.2025 & 10 12 2025. In compliance to these notices assessee has filed his reply and submitted some case laws and requested for adjournment which have been place on record.

6. DECISION:

6.1 The impugned order of penalty was passed on the basis of undisclosed income in the case of the appellant by an order of regular assessment passed on 30.03.2016. This order was passed u/s 143(3).

6.2 The AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on part of the assessee for a sum of Rs.3.81,10,000/-, minimum penalty @100% tax of amount Rs. 1,18,14,100/- was levied in this case. In this case subsequent to a survey u/s 133A of the IT. Act, the assesse came forward with voluntary disclosure of income of Rs.3,81,10,000/- and returned the income of Rs.3,96,19,501/- in the original return of income filed on 30.09.2013. In the course of assessment proceedings, no addition was made by the AO regarding business income of the assessee In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the assessee, case laws cited, penalty of Rs. 1,18,14,100/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) is deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed.

7. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed”.

6. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has filed the detailed explanations before the assessing officer in the penalty proceedings and The assessee has offered the income in survey operations to buy peace and has disclosed in the return of income filed and was accepted by the A.O and the assessee has paid the taxes and the Ld.AR relied on the fallowing judicial decisions:

i) CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2011] 119 Taxman 433(Supreme Court)

ii) CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals [2011] 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi High Court)

iii) PCIT v. M/s Shreedhar Associates [R/Tax Appeal No. 178 of 2021] (Gujarat High Court)

iv) PCIT v. Shree Sai Developers [R/Tax Appeal No. 498 of 2019] (Gujarat High Court)

v) DCIT v. M/s. Mahalaxmi Realtors [ITA No. 1407/PUN/2018] (Pune Tribunal)

vi) M/s. Dhanlaxmi Developers v. DCIT [ITA No. 1888/PUN/2018] (Pune Tribunal)

vii) Prasad Gangadhar Mate v. ACIT [ITA No.2964/PUN/2016] (Pune Tribunal)

viii) Pradeep Sweets Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [ITA No.408/PUN/2017] (Pune Tribunal)

ix) M/s. D.P. Jagtap v. ACIT [ITA No. 418/PLIN/2015) (Pune Tribunal)

7. We find the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs SAS Pharmaceuticals (2011) 199 taxman255(Delhi) has dealt on the similar issue and held as under:

“1. This appeal arises out of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („the Tribunal‟ for brevity) vide which it has affirmed the order of the CIT (A) deleting the penalty of `32,39,393/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). It so happened that a survey was carried out at the business premises and godown of the respondent-assessee on 06.01.2003. In that survey, discrepancies in cash, stock and renovation were found. When the assessee was confronted with the same, it surrendered the amount of `88,14,676/- during the survey. Since the survey was conducted on 06.01.2003, i.e., in the Financial Year 2002-03 corresponding to the Assessment Year 2003-04, for that assessment year, the assessee had not filed the income tax return and naturally the occasion to file the income tax return had not matured. When the income tax return was ultimately filed by the assessee on 02.12.2003, the assessee declared its income @ `87,71,580/- including the amount surrendered by the assessee itself. The assessment was framed including the surrendered amount. While passing the assessment order, the AO also decided to initiate penalty proceedings separately on the ground that the assessee had concealed the income. Show cause notice was given to which the assessee submitted the reply stating that the assessee had itself voluntarily surrendered the amount to avoid litigation and to buy peace of mind and had not concealed any income. This explanation was not digested by the AO, who had the view that the surrender was made only when discrepancies were brought to the notice of the assessee, which were found in cash, stock as well as renovation of the premises done by the assessee. He, thus, was of the opinion that had there been no survey, the assessee would have succeeded in concealing the income and evading tax. On this premise, penalty of `32,39,393/- was imposed.

2. The CIT (A) deleted the penalty on the ground that there was no concealment of income as in the return filed by the assessee, the said income was duly reflected.

3. The Tribunal has upheld the order of the CIT (A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. It is in this factual context that the instant appeal is preferred by the Revenue, which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“(i) Whether ITAT was correct in law in deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act?

(ii) Whether ITAT was correct in law in holding that no concealment was made by the assessee though the assessee had surrendered the amount of `88,14,676/- during survey on account of discrepancies found in cash, stock and difference in renovation?”

4. The facts demonstrated bring forth the position that when the survey was conducted a couple of months before the close of Financial Year, i.e., 06.01.2006, definitely discrepancies were found inasmuch as there was difference in cash, stock as well as renovation expenses are as follows:

5. The assessee accepted this difference and surrendered the amount. No attempt was made by the assessee even after this surrender to retract therefrom or to explain that there were no such discrepancies. In fact, the position was carried by including this amount even in the income tax return filed by the assessee. Thus, no doubt, the assessee has surrendered certain income during the course of survey and discrepancies noticed by the survey team would suggest that the assessee was not maintaining proper accounts in respect to cash, stock and renovation expenses, etc. Therefore, there could be a possibility that but for this survey, the discrepancies brought to the notice of the assessee and physical verification of the stock and other accounts would have gone unnoticed and the assessee might have suppressed in the income tax return as well However, fact remains that it has disclosed this in the return filed by it.

6. In this context, the question would be as to whether the assessee can be imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act when the assessee has shown this income in the income tax return filed by it and contends that it has voluntarily declared the same in the „regular return filed for the relevant year‟.

7. To seek an answer, it would be necessary to look into the language of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This provision reads as under:

“271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person-

(a)…………………………….

(b) ……………………………

(c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income,”

8. As pointed out above, the contention of the Department is that the intention of the assessee in maintaining false records relating to cash, stock and renovation, etc., was manifest, viz., to conceal the particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It was contended that but for the said survey in which the assessee was exposed, he would have filed the income tax return concealing the said income and therefore, provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the act are clearly attracted.

9. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, contends that Clause (c) of Section 271(1) of the Act makes it crystal clear that the act of „concealment‟ or „furnishing inaccurate particulars” is relatable only in respect of a return being filed. Therefore, in a case where the stage of filing return itself had not been reached, there is no question of invocation of the penal provision of Section 271 of the Act, as is the position in the present case. In the present case, the return was filed well within the prescribed time, i.e., on 02.12.2003 and in the said return the entire amount had been duly shown as income.Therefore, invoking a penal provision merely on the basis of assumption that the assessee „would not have included‟ the said amount while filing his return is completely erroneous and unsustainable. It is a settled position of law as enunciated in various judicial pronouncements that „penalty cannot be based on presumptions and surmises‟. It was also argued that the legislative intent in connection with Section 271 of the Act is further fortified from the various Explanations provided in the said provision. In this regard, Explanation 4 is relevant wherein it is specifically provided as to what would be included in the expression „the amount of tax sought to the evaded‟, which is the basis for imposition of penalty contemplated under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. The perusal of the said Explanation also clearly establishes the direct nexus between the concealment/inaccurate particular being furnished with the return filed.

10. To bolster this submission, the learned counsel for the assessee took refuge of Explanation 5 and Explanation 5A of Section 271 of the Act and submitted that these Explanations provide that in cases of search by way of deeming fiction, the liability towards penalty has been prescribed even in cases where the return of income for such year has not been furnished before the said date of search. Therefore, wherever the legislature intended to impose a penal liability covering a case where return was yet to be filed, a deeming fiction has been consciously provided. In the absence of any such deeming fiction imposing penalty in a case of survey where return is yet to be filed, the penal provision of Section 271 of the Act cannot be invoked as the mandatory ingredients thereof are not met at all.

11. He also sought to draw sustenance from the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 3 SCR 510 wherein inter alia it has been held that unless the conditions under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act exist in a particular case, penalty cannot be imposed and it was further held that 271 of the Act being a penal provision is required to be construed strictly. The following observations made in the said judgment were specifically referred to:

“8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under Section 271 (1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise.”

12. After considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee has to prevail as it carried substantial weight. It is to be kept in mind that Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is a penal provision and such a provision has to be strictly construed. Unless the case falls within the four-corners of the said provision, penalty cannot be imposed. Sub-section (1) of Section 271 stipulates certain contingencies on the happening whereof the AO or the Commissioner (Appeals) may direct payment of penalty by the assessee. We are concerned herewith the fundamentality provided in Clause(c) of Section 271 (1) of the Act, which authorizes imposition of penalty when the AO is satisfied that the assessee has either;

(a) Concealed the particulars of his income; or

(b) Furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.

13. It is not the case of furnishing inaccurate particular of income, as in the income tax return, particulars of income have been duly furnished and the surrendered amount of income was duly reflected in the income tax return. The question is whether the particulars of income were concealed by the assessee or not. It would depend upon the issue as to whether this concealment has reference to the income tax return filed by the assessee, viz., whether concealment is to be found in the income tax return.

14. We may, first of all, reject the contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue relying upon the expression „in the course of any proceedings under this Act‟ occurring in Sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Act and contending that even during survey when it was found that the assessee had concealed the particular of his income, it would amount concealment in the course of „any proceedings‟. The words „in the course of any proceedings under this Act‟ are prefaced by the satisfaction of the AO or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). When the survey is conducted by a survey team, the question of satisfaction of the AO or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner does not arise. We have to keep in mind that it is the AO who initiated the penalty proceedings and directed the payment of penalty. He had not recorded any satisfaction during the course of survey. Decision to initiate penalty proceedings was taken while making assessment order. It is, thus, obvious that the expression „in the course of any proceedings under this Act‟ cannot have the reference to survey proceedings, in this case.

15. It necessarily follows that concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by the assessee has to be in the income tax return filed by it. There is sufficient indication of this in the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I Vs. Mohan Das HassaNand 141 ITR 203 and in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court has clinched this aspect, viz., the assessee can furnish the particulars of income in his return and everything would depend upon the income tax return filed by the assessee. This view gets supported by Explanation 4 as well as 5 and 5A of Section 271 of the Act as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent.

16. No doubt, the discrepancies were found during the survey. This has yielded income from the assessee in the form of amount surrendered by the assessee. Presently, we are not concerned with the assessment of income, but the moot question is to whether this would attract penalty upon the assessee under the provisions of Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. Obviously, no penalty can be imposed unless the conditions stipulated in the said provisions are duly and unambiguously satisfied. Since the assessee was exposed during survey, may be, it would have not disclosed the income but for the said survey. However, there cannot be any penalty only on surmises, conjectures and possibilities. Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act has to be construed strictly. Unless it is found that there is actually a concealment or non-disclosure of the particulars of income, penalty cannot be imposed. There is no such concealment or non-disclosure as the assessee had made a complete disclosure in the income tax return and offered the surrendered amount for the purposes of tax.

17. We, thus, answer the questions as formulated above, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue finding no fault with the decisions of the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal. As a result, this appeal is dismissed.

8. We considered the facts, circumstances and the ratio of the judicial decisions dealt and further the submissions of the Ld.AR are supported with the facts that in the course of survey operations u/sec133A of the Act carried out on the business premises of the assessee on 05.02.2013, and the assessee has declared additional income of Rs. 3,81,10,000/- and was included in the return of income filed for A.Y.2013-14 on 30.09.2013 and accepted by the Assessing Officer and the penalty levied u/sec271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained. Whereas the CIT(A) has dealt on the facts, provisions of law and Judicial decisions relied by the assessee and deleted the penalty. Further, the Ld.DR could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A) with any new cogent evidence. We are of the view that the CIT(A) order is reasoned and conclusive. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and upheld the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the revenue.

9. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on the open Court on 01st September 2026.