{"id":5420,"date":"2012-08-23T11:48:28","date_gmt":"2012-08-23T11:48:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=5420"},"modified":"2012-08-23T12:09:15","modified_gmt":"2012-08-23T12:09:15","slug":"radheshyam-sarda-vs-acit-itat-indore-no-s-2711c-penalty-even-if-revised-roi-filed-after-detection-but-before-issue-of-s-148-notice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/radheshyam-sarda-vs-acit-itat-indore-no-s-2711c-penalty-even-if-revised-roi-filed-after-detection-but-before-issue-of-s-148-notice\/","title":{"rendered":"Radheshyam Sarda vs. ACIT (ITAT Indore)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
Click here to download the judgement (radheyshyam_sarda_penalty_271_1_c.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n


\nNo s. 271(1)(c) penalty even if revised ROI filed after detection but before issue of s. 148 notice
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

For AY 2005-06, the assessee filed a return in which he offered long-term capital gains on sale of shares. An inquiry pursuant to a survey<\/em> u\/s 133A was conducted. Because the assessee was unable to furnish the documents<\/em> called for by the department, it filed a revised return<\/em> on 22.5.2008 in which the LTCG was offered as normal income<\/em> and tax was paid. The AO thereafter issued a s. 148 notice, completed the assessment on the basis of the revised ROI without any addition. The AO levied s. 271(1)(c) penalty on the ground that the revised ROI was filed after detection<\/em> by the department. The assessee argued that as the revised ROI was filed prior to the issue of the s. 148 notice, penalty was not leviable. HELD by the Tribunal:<\/p>\n

It is the settled law that if a revised return offering additional income is filed after investigation has started<\/strong> but before the issue<\/strong> of the s. 148 notice, s. 271(1)(c) penalty is not leviable. In Sureshchand Mittal<\/strong> 251 ITR 9, the Supreme Court held that even where the assessee surrendered additional income<\/strong> by way of a revised return after persistent queries<\/strong> by the AO, once the revised ROI has been regularized<\/strong> by the revenue, the assessee\u2019s explanation that he had declared the additional income to buy peace<\/strong> had to be treated as bona fide<\/strong> and s. 271(1)(c) penalty could not be levied. On facts, as the assessee filed a revised ROI after survey<\/strong> but before the issue<\/strong> of the s. 148 notice, penalty was not leviable.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It is the settled law that if a revised return offering additional income is filed after investigation has started<\/strong> but before the issue<\/strong> of the s. 148 notice, s. 271(1)(c) penalty is not leviable. In Sureshchand Mittal<\/strong> 251 ITR 9, the Supreme Court held that even where the assessee surrendered additional income<\/strong> by way of a revised return after persistent queries<\/strong> by the AO, once the revised ROI has been regularized<\/strong> by the revenue, the assessee\u2019s explanation that he had declared the additional income to buy peace<\/strong> had to be treated as bona fide<\/strong> and s. 271(1)(c) penalty could not be levied. On facts, as the assessee filed a revised ROI after survey<\/strong> but before the issue<\/strong> of the s. 148 notice, penalty was not leviable<\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/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":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5420","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5420","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=5420"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5420\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}