{"id":3193,"date":"2011-05-25T19:42:32","date_gmt":"2011-05-25T14:12:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=3193"},"modified":"2011-05-25T19:42:32","modified_gmt":"2011-05-25T14:12:32","slug":"cit-vs-sas-pharmaceuticals-delhi-high-court-despite-detection-in-survey-no-s-2711c-penalty-if-income-offered-in-roi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-sas-pharmaceuticals-delhi-high-court-despite-detection-in-survey-no-s-2711c-penalty-if-income-offered-in-roi\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals (Delhi High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=433\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=433&varname2=sas_pahrma_survey_concealment.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (sas_pahrma_survey_concealment.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nDespite detection in survey, No s. 271(1)(c) penalty if income offered in ROI<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>A survey was conducted pursuant to which certain <em>discrepancies were found and the assessee surrendered Rs. 88.14 lakhs<\/em>. In the ROI due for the financial year of survey, the assessee offered the said sum as income. The AO levied penalty u\/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the <em>offer of income was pursuant to detection in the survey and not voluntary<\/em>. The CIT(A) &#038; Tribunal deleted the penalty. On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Though it is possible that but for detection in the survey, the assessee might not have offered the income, penalty u\/s 271(1)(c) can only be levied if &#8220;<em>in the course of proceedings<\/em>&#8221; the AO is satisfied that there is &#8220;<em>concealment<\/em>&#8221; or &#8220;<em>furnishing of inaccurate particulars<\/em>&#8220;. The words &#8220;<em>in the course of proceedings<\/em>&#8221; <strong>mean the assessment proceedings<\/strong> because there is no question of the satisfaction of the AO in survey proceedings. Further, the <strong>question whether there is &#8220;concealment&#8221; or &#8220;inaccurate particulars&#8221; has to be determined with reference to the return of income<\/strong>. As the assessee had offered the detected income in the return, there was neither concealment nor the furnishing of inaccurate particulars. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\nFor more see <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/articles_new\/index.php\/penalty-us-2711c-a-comprehensive-analysis-k-c-singhal-advocate\/\">Penalty u\/s 271(1)(c): A Comprehensive Analysis<\/a><\/strong> by <strong>Shri. K. C. Singhal<\/strong>, VP, ITAT (Retd)\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Though it is possible that but for detection in the survey, the assessee might not have offered the income, penalty u\/s 271(1)(c) can only be levied if &#8220;<em>in the course of proceedings<\/em>&#8221; the AO is satisfied that there is &#8220;<em>concealment<\/em>&#8221; or &#8220;<em>furnishing of inaccurate particulars<\/em>&#8221; in the return of income. The words &#8220;<em>in the course of proceedings<\/em>&#8221; <strong>mean the assessment proceedings<\/strong> because there is no question of the satisfaction of the AO in survey proceedings. Further, the <strong>question whether there is &#8220;concealment&#8221; or &#8220;inaccurate particulars&#8221; has to be determined with reference to the return of income<\/strong>. As the assessee had offered the detected income in the return, there was neither concealment nor the furnishing of inaccurate particulars<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-sas-pharmaceuticals-delhi-high-court-despite-detection-in-survey-no-s-2711c-penalty-if-income-offered-in-roi\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3193","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3193","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3193"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3193\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3193"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3193"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3193"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}