Ravi Sud v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax*

IT: Where assessee filed revised return and had suo motu offered additional income and same was not detected during any course of action by revenue authorities, it could not be said to be a case of concealment of income inviting penalty action under section 271(1)(c)
■■■
[2015] 60 taxmann.com 241 (Mumbai - Trib.)
IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH 'D'
Ravi Sud
v.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax*
B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
IT APPEAL NOS. 93 TO 98 (MUM.) OF 2012
[ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2000-01]
MARCH  4, 2015
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Revised return) - Assessment year 1998-99 - Assessee filed original return declaring a certain income - Subsequently he filed revised return declaring additional income being share of profit from firm 'R', which was claimed as exempt in original return - Prior to filing of revised return, a search was conducted under section 132 upon firm 'R' and same was found to be a bogus firm - Thereafter Assessing Officer issued on assessee a notice under section 148, in response to which assessee submitted that revised return be treated as filed in response to said notice - Thereupon Assessing Officer completed assessment of assessee under section 143(3) read with section 147 determining total income as was declared in revised return - He also levied penalty upon assessee under section 271(1)(c) holding that assessee had filed revised return after detection of alleged bogus firm 'R' and, therefore, revised return was not voluntary and it was a case of concealment of income - Whether as assessee had suo motu offered additional income and same was not detected during any course of action by revenue authorities against assessee, it could not be said to be a case of concealment of income inviting penalty action under section 271(1)(c) - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]
G.P. Mehta for the Appellant. Love Kumar for the Respondent.