| COURT: | ITAT Mumbai |
| CORAM: | Amit Shukla (JM), D. Karunakara Rao (AM) |
| SECTION(S): | 271(1)(c) |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | admission of undisclosed income, concealment of income, furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, penalty, survey |
| COUNSEL: | Dr. K. Shivram, Rahul Hakani |
| DATE: | June 19, 2014 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | November 17, 2014 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2007-08 |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 271(1)(c): No penalty can be levied solely on the basis of admission made during survey if there is no corroborative evidence & no fault is found with the return of income | |
Though the assessee offered a sum of Rs. 1 crore during the survey on account of discrepencies, errors and omissions in the accounts, at the stage of the assessment, there is no reference to any incriminating material found during the course of survey consequent upon which the assessee was cornered to surrender the said sum of Rs. 1 crore. Mere admission by the assessee in the statement given during the course of survey itself cannot be a conclusive piece of evidence, unless, such a surrender is corroborated by any evidence or materials discovered during the course of such survey proceedings or by any enquiry thereafter. The amount which was surrendered during the course of such survey has already been reconciled and disclosed in the regular books of account which has been subjected to audit. These audited statements of accounts were filed along with the return of income under section 139(1). It is an undisputed fact that at the time of survey, which was conducted on 29th March 2007, the return of income for the assessment year 2007-8, was not due, as the due date for filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) for the assessment year 2007-08, was 31st October 2007. The assessee had duly disclosed all the particulars of its income in the return of income and the assessment was completed without finding any defect either In the audited statement of account or in the books of account produced before him. The question whether there is any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income has to be determined on the basis of the return of income as held in SAS Pharmaceuticals 335 ITR 259 (Del).
find sec 271(1)(c) is a most used section by Ld AOs just because how AOs can penalize one for a supposed to be some error some where?
How can a state entrust some administrative functionary some extra judicial powers to a non judge just on suspicion, this would make a state just arbitrary police state and how can a democratic state commit a citizen without really examining what is the actus reas and mens rea, thoroughly. something most undesirable in a country where you have Art 265 taxation is defined – only after due process if proved to hilt then only you can convert an accused as a convict under law of crimes, but in civil serious errors how can you use without real meaningful evidence the conviction provision after all penalty too is a conviction as it is a penalty on the basis of mens rea?
i have seen tribunal members asking the appellant that hon tribunal remand back to AO who made bad in law order.. what that does it mean ?
where is the idea of compromise when one party is seriously wrong? further tribunal is not a conciliatory machinery like a settlement commission.
i wonder how hon tribunals suggest for remand back when there is already a decision by hon SC which reprimanded a high court for remanding back without taking the decision on merits. does it means tribunal members are yet not aware where to remand and where not. certainly in bad in law cases the hon tribunal need to take a decision on the question of law base only no point talking on facts again sirs.
if done hon tribunal surrenders before revenue is the meaning which is not the legislative intention on jurisdiction lapse matters, i consider