Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

f) I am a regular tax payer for last 20 years or so. No major addition/disallowance were made in my case in scrutiny assessment and other proceedings for any earlier assessment years or the year under consideration."

Thus, the non-discovery of incriminating discoveries in the survey action, voluntary and sue motto disclosure of Rs 50 lakhs, valid revising of the returns Mr. Dilip Yeshwant Oak Asstt. Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04.

Mr. Dilip Yeshwant Oak Asstt. Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04.

2nd Appellate Proceedings:

9. During the proceedings before us, Shri S.U. Pathak, learned counsel for the assessee, read out the relevant portions of the orders of the Revenue and argued for the proposition that the assessee's case is not a fit case for levy of penalty. The submissions briefly are as follows ie (i) the assessee is regular in filing the return of income for the last two decades and engaged in the enrichment or empowerment of the youth of India; (ii) the survey operation u/s 133A hardly resulted in discovery of any incriminating evidences to support the disclosure of additional income of Rs.50 lakhs or any other undisclosed FDs; (iii) the assessee offered the said additional income covering three assessment years which constitutes a voluntary and bona fide act; (iv) In compliance of the above disclosure, the assessee filed the revised returns of income not only including the above said additional income but also enhancing the said income sue motto and voluntarily to the extent of left over fixed deposits lying with the banks in names of the self and members of the family without going into the ownership of the FDs and the period it relate to. This is a voluntary and bona fide offer and it is full and true disclosure; (v) The revised return of income is a valid one. The AO did not find a mistake either on legal front as well as on merits in such revised return; (vi) The CIT(Appeals) erroneously held and tried to find mistakes in the assessee's offer of additional income which is declared under bonafide belief which constitutes a reasonable cause for non levy of penalties u/s 271(1)(c); (vii) taking us through various documents filed before us by way of a paper book, the Sri Pathak, learned counsel for the assessee demonstrated that the impugned additional income/ fixed deposits in fact does not belong to the years under consideration. The impugned FDs have real genesis in the year 1999. Therefore, the AO wrongly taxed in the years under consideration merely because it is offered by me. There is no enquiry into by the AO on the issues of actual ownership and actual AYs, they relate to. Further, he mentioned that penalty u/s 272(1)(c) of the Act should be levied in the assessment years under consideration in respect of the income/FDs, which in fact pertains to earlier AYs;

Mr. Dilip Yeshwant Oak Asstt. Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04.

11. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue. We have also gone through the paper book filed before us including the fixed deposit analysis, related documents which were also available to the revenue authorities.

Undisputed facts include the following (i) there is survey action on the assessee; (ii) the said action resulted in enforcing the assessee to disclose the additional income of Rs 50 lakhs or more for three AYs; (iii) Assessee filed the returns/revised returns validly complying with the admission made during the survey action; (iv) assessee paid relatable taxes on the impugned additional income as per the provisions of the Act; (v) there was an oral request of the assessee to the AO for non levy of penalties u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect the said additional income; (vi) the revised income offered by the assessee in the returns/revised returns is much higher than Rs 50 lakhs spread over three AYs;

Thus, the return of income or valid revised return is the basis or the starting point for arriving at the accuracy or inaccuracy of the particulars/claims "because that is the only document where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income..... To attract penalty, the details supplied in the return must not be accurate, not exact or correct not according to the truth or erroneous". In the light of the said settled position, we have examined the facts of the instant case, where the assessee furnished the valid revised return, which was accepted by the AO without pointing out a single inaccuracy and without making any further additions in the assessment. In such circumstances, we find that it is not a fit case for levy penalty.